[QUOTE=SuzieQNutter;8637542]
Yes our cattle are given vaccinations and wormed. We vaccinate with 7 in 1 which vaccinates for 7 disease at once. We inject with dectomax which kills internal and external parasites. If we have a sick calf we can give it penicillin. We have blooded them before, which is injections you can get from the DPI against ticks.
What makes you think that we don’t?[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, the injectable meats on aisle 3. Yum.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8637957]
Grudgingly admitting something, when specifically pressed and after years of omission, is not “transparency”. (Anybody who’s ever been promised “transparency” by some constantly obfuscating political body will know exactly what I’m talking about here.)
Stand back, objectively look at that Benner website, full of baby birds, Morris dancers and Happy Talk, and then compare this to the website of any real working farm in your area, particularly those with genuinely educational agritourist features.
In the latter case you’ll see words like “grassfed”, “beef”, “pork” and, yes, “MEAT” - clear, honest words that pull no punches. The Benner website is a whole 'nother kettle of beans. All the bad words and straight talk have been carefully left out, and what’s left is basically a Reality Free Zone with some heavily edited rural trappings.
Now, if the Benner’s want to run a farm-themed day camp, that’s their prerogative. If they want to host weddings and parties and play dates with pets - absolutely AOK. I’d imagine there’s a much higher profit margin in this than in actual farming, so who can blame them?
The problem here is that you can’t ethically charge people good money to revel in this harmless, toothless, reality-free version of “farming”, and then suddenly pull the rug out from under them with some random bullshit about being a “working farm”. At that point, any honest person will tell you that you’re no longer a working farm in any meaningful way, and that your actual product is now the fantasy itself.
In a country absolutely steeped in the consumerist ethos, this ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
Minnie the (cash) cow was a farm mascot and internet personality for two years without anybody happening to mention that she’s actually a BEEF animal. That’s not “transparency”, that’s a calculated marketing ploy.
In any other industry, this wouldn’t even be up for debate.[/QUOTE]
You mean, like using organic and natural to sell the same everyone else produces and charging more for that label, as so many are doing?
Kinda like that, yes.
In this case it’s a small “farm” instead of a huge conglomerate, but I think the “truth in advertising” issues are basically the same.
Here is just a little bit of what I’ve learned from reading online lately.
Short list of unacceptable people, breeds, terms, etc. as of 2016:
Horse racing, the Amish, factory farms, Parelli, carriage horses, rodeo, puppy mills, chuckwagon racing, dairy farmers, circuses, ear tags, chicken farmers, breeders, PMU, beef farmers, working horses, hunters,…
Acceptable or encouraged terms when posting:
Factory farm or farmer, “educate yourself”, “get informed”, evolved, “know better now”, abused, “this isn’t 1894”, organic, grass-fed, free range, ethically produced, rescued, “horrific conditions”, billions, run free, “as nature intended”, exploited, cruelty, “nose to tailpipe”, “free of hormones and antibiotics”;…
Best sources of information:
Internet (“Just google it”); actors and celebrities; activists; social media; any other website or source which relies as heavily as possible on the new and accepted words, terms or thinking;…
Sources to be avoided:
The majority of veterinarians, owners, breeders, anyone with practical experience, those who don’t have (or don’t state) a degree when posting, anyone who doesn’t provide an online link or reference to what they’ve commented on, anyone who encourages thinking about things from the point of the person / group being harassed or lied about, any farmer who admits to using antibiotics when their livestock needs treated, …
Sure, we’re seeing more of the quotes like the one below, but what’s so wrong with that.
“Horses are the most mistreated animals in the world. Google horse bits and learn about the instruments of torture that are used to control them. A curb bit pushes against the roof of the horse’s mouth to create excruciating pain, a snaffle bit pinches the horse’s tongue and cheeks, a hackamore stops the horse from breathing. If you did this to a cat or dog, you would be arrested for animal cruelty. Why does any one get away with this torture for entertainment and pleasure.”
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8637957]
Grudgingly admitting something, when specifically pressed and after years of omission, is not “transparency”. (Anybody who’s ever been promised “transparency” by some constantly obfuscating political body will know exactly what I’m talking about here.)
Stand back, objectively look at that Benner website, full of baby birds, Morris dancers and Happy Talk, and then compare this to the website of any real working farm in your area, particularly those with genuinely educational agritourist features.
In the latter case you’ll see words like “grassfed”, “beef”, “pork” and, yes, “MEAT” - clear, honest words that pull no punches. The Benner website is a whole 'nother kettle of beans. All the bad words and straight talk have been carefully left out, and what’s left is basically a Reality Free Zone with some heavily edited rural trappings.
Now, if the Benner’s want to run a farm-themed day camp, that’s their prerogative. If they want to host weddings and parties and play dates with pets - absolutely AOK. I’d imagine there’s a much higher profit margin in this than in actual farming, so who can blame them?
The problem here is that you can’t ethically charge people good money to revel in this harmless, toothless, reality-free version of “farming”, and then suddenly pull the rug out from under them with some random bullshit about being a “working farm”. At that point, any honest person will tell you that you’re no longer a working farm in any meaningful way, and that your actual product is now the fantasy itself.
In a country absolutely steeped in the consumerist ethos, this ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
Minnie the (cash) cow was a farm mascot and internet personality for two years without anybody happening to mention that she’s actually a BEEF animal. That’s not “transparency”, that’s a calculated marketing ploy.
In any other industry, this wouldn’t even be up for debate.[/QUOTE]
But this is a 15 acre farm because it is on Long Island where land prices and population preclude them from many of the things you want them to do.
And how do you know it has not been mentioned ever before?
Where does it indicate years of omission? Or admitting grudgingly? I am not being snarky, I just haven’t seen that suggested in what I’ve read.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8637957]Stand back, objectively look at that Benner website, full of baby birds, Morris dancers and Happy Talk, and then compare this to the website of any real working farm in your area, particularly those with genuinely educational agritourist features.
In the latter case you’ll see words like “grassfed”, “beef”, “pork” and, yes, “MEAT” - clear, honest words that pull no punches. The Benner website is a whole 'nother kettle of beans. All the bad words and straight talk have been carefully left out, and what’s left is basically a Reality Free Zone with some heavily edited rural trappings.
[/QUOTE]
It says they raise animals to support themselves. While it’s not a neon sign saying we slaughter our animals it really doesn’t seem to be something that is hidden.
They are running a business. A business that goes beyond traditional farming to include other types of activities (e.g. camps, events etc). They are entitled to do that. If people don’t like how they run the business or care for the animals they are entitled not to visit.
But petitions? Threats? WAYYYY over the top.
And another thing. They aren’t raising meat for others just for themselves so I don’t understand why the push that meat raising needs to be front and center on the website.
They are however still a farm even if it is different than my farm.
[QUOTE=toady123;8638236]
Where does it indicate years of omission? Or admitting grudgingly? I am not being snarky, I just haven’t seen that suggested in what I’ve read.
It says they raise animals to support themselves. While it’s not a neon sign saying we slaughter our animals it really doesn’t seem to be something that is hidden.
They are running a business. A business that goes beyond traditional farming to include other types of activities (e.g. camps, events etc). They are entitled to do that. If people don’t like how they run the business or care for the animals they are entitled not to visit.
But petitions? Threats? WAYYYY over the top.[/QUOTE]Hey, I agree about the threats and badgering and bullying. I’ve read some of it, and it really is incredibly stupid. But none of that changes the fact that this Benner guy played his cards really, really badly.
Lets say you take your toddler to a kid-centered, pirate-themed restaurant for her birthday. Okay. Do you really think your kid needs to know that the guy making sandwiches is paid too little to repay his student loans? Or that the waitress in the princess dress is really Amber Bangs, much-loved porn star?
My bet is that you don’t, even if, like me, you’re deeply concerned about the financial hardships of youth. Does this mean you’re engaged in some nefarious conspiracy of silence and anti-student subterfuge? God, no! It just means you’re not an angry, axe-grinding moron.
:winkgrin:
Have you actually read the petitioners’ complaint? Its basic intent has nothing to do with whether or not people should eat meat, or any other cosmic issue in that vein. It’s really just a complaint about truth in advertising and fair play, and I can totally see where its initial impulse is coming from.
Minnie has been the resident cow at Benners Farm for over 2 years. She is used as the face of the farm for all their educational programs, birthday parties and festivals…the events are too numerous to name. Updates are posted about her on their instagram account…and with good reason…she is quite personable and has been a wonderful animal ambassador for the “farm”. The public’s impression was to believe that this was a resident cow but now are being advised she is being slated for slaughter. Please support Minnie and support this petition.
[QUOTE=ChFr;8638032]
…
“Horses are the most mistreated animals in the world. Google horse bits and learn about the instruments of torture that are used to control them. A curb bit pushes against the roof of the horse’s mouth to create excruciating pain, a snaffle bit pinches the horse’s tongue and cheeks, a hackamore stops the horse from breathing. If you did this to a cat or dog, you would be arrested for animal cruelty. Why does any one get away with this torture for entertainment and pleasure.”[/QUOTE]
And of course, Pet Parents…so god forbid that animals be property.
As I said up-thread…anyone who thinks this stops with some little farm on Long Island has their heads in the sand…or elsewhere. Horses and horse ownership are not too far a leap if the mindset prevailing in the Benner farm issue.
Google “Joshua Rookwood” and see what happened to a man who left his farm one very cold winter day (-27F in NY state) to run errands one day and finds himself arrested for animal cruelty when he returns.
"[I]Rockwood was charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty (all misdemeanors) after police conducted two searches of his farm and found, they say, animals left out in the cold and without unfrozen water. Rockwood was arrested and some of his horses were confiscated.
[/I]Small farms like Rockwood’s are sometimes caught in the middle. They are held to laws for household pets, even though those laws are impractical for a working farm. It’s no coincidence, I think, that Rockwood was arrested in a town in which suburbia crashes headfirst into the rural countryside.
The huge irony of the Rockwood case is that he became a farmer, in part, to offer an alternative to industrialized farming. He pasture raises his pigs and cattle, meaning those animals have lives that are far better than those lived by 99.9% percent of American livestock. His pigs don’t suffer in gestation crates. And yet Rockwood is the one facing animal-cruelty charges."
http://blog.timesunion.com/churchill/the-strange-case-against-joshua-rockwood/14/
He never found out who filed charges against him.
Fortunately, the end of the story is that he was vindicated, but not until after over a year of legal hassling and expenses to defend himself against charges that should never have been brought.
http://www.bedlamfarm.com/2016/01/12/joshuas-great-victory-its-over/
But have you read their facebook page?
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8637795]
The perception was that the animals were there for the people who visited, because the farm makes its venue from the public. Minnie the cow was a popular tourist attraction, and when someone did ask what was going to happen to her, people felt that the truth was kept from them.
So while the farmer might have felt he was being honest (because he answered a question), the public thought he was being dishonest (because he was never clear that the animals were for meat on social media, during tours, petting visits, etc).
It was bad communication. They say in the Navy that perception is reality, and the reality of the farm was not what a lot of guests felt comfortable promoting and keeping in business with their money.[/QUOTE]
I think you’re swimming against the tide with this crowd. 
This reminds me of a young couple I know in the Hood River area. They are promoting their beef as healthy. A supplier for several restaurants came to their farm because she wanted to see if the animals lived in a “happy and clean environment”. They showed her their operation and got her business. They know that in their area, with the clientele they are hoping to attract, that they need to show the humane side of animal consumption. Kind of like the dairy that has ads saying happy cows come from California.
The obvious flaw with the argument that the Save Minnie the Cow petition being about an incomplete marketing message is that the petition isn’t to cause them to change the message; it is about removing their cow from them.
Really, it is about thou shalt not eat named animals.
The marketing ‘problem’ is simply a red herring.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8638343]
But have you read their facebook page?[/QUOTE]
No, I haven’t, and I’m sure it’s just as stupid as the day is long.
My point is that Benner brought all this stupidity on himself, and that he could easily have prevented it, simply by facing a few simple economic realities.
EITHER you’re taking money to indulge the delicate sensibilities of suburban toddlers, OR you’re running a real farm.
You cannot do both without drawing crap down upon your own head.
Simple proposition, proven by real world events.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8638360]
No, I haven’t, and I’m sure it’s just as stupid as the day is long.
My point is that Benner brought all this stupidity on himself, and that he could easily have prevented it, simply by facing a few simple economic realities.
EITHER you’re taking money to indulge the delicate sensibilities of suburban toddlers, OR you’re running a real farm.
You cannot do both without drawing crap don upon your own head.
Simple proposition, proven by real world events.[/QUOTE]
I don’t see the world as “binary”…“either/or” eg., run a real farm or run a petting zoo.
Why not a philosophy of “and”…Eg., it is a real farm AND it provides an opportunity to connect with animals…AND…it provides a place for people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to be aware that the shrink-wrapped steak you’re planning to BBQ this weekend once had a name.
I am a city girl thru and thru…it was only as an adult when I connected the dots between my drinking milk and the veal scallopine I ate at my favorite restaurant.
The point is that the farmer is on his own land doing nothing illegal. People came on his land with a different opinion about what he should be doing on that farm and is now facing death threats by a mob on the internet.
Scary.
[QUOTE=Gestalt;8638353]
I think you’re swimming against the tide with this crowd.
This reminds me of a young couple I know in the Hood River area. They are promoting their beef as healthy. A supplier for several restaurants came to their farm because she wanted to see if the animals lived in a “happy and clean environment”. They showed her their operation and got her business. They know that in their area, with the clientele they are hoping to attract, that they need to show the humane side of animal consumption. Kind of like the dairy that has ads saying happy cows come from California.[/QUOTE]
the Happy cows come from CA ad was memorable. It was also one of the most blatantly far from reality of modern marketing campaigns.
It doesn’t run anymore…
The original ad campaign that resulted in women taking up cigarette smoking called them ‘torches of freedom’
Marketing is about changing people’s buying habits and thinking regarding products and topics, not reality. Never has been.
There is a saying in business that 20% of your customers provide 80% of your revenue.
There is also a saying in business that 20% of your customers provide 80% of your grief.
And sometimes it is a very good business plan to let bad customers go elsewhere.
And to encourage them on their way.
A person shelling out cold hard cash for a specified service is under no obligation to change his “philosophy” to suit the seller’s random changes of heart.
If the seller advertises rainbow farts and May poles, then this is exactly what he should deliver.
Even Ayn Rand gets this.
People came on his farm because that’s his main business objective.
The problem with his working farm is he never connected all the cute “petting zoo” animals people were paying to visit with “my dinner last night.”
He kept that part of farm life out of the lesson plan.
No one was ever explained upfront that Minnie the heifer was an intended meat animal during all the events done with her.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8638402]
…
Even Ayn Rand gets this.[/QUOTE]
What’s Ayn Rand got to do with poor marketing or clueless people?
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8638332]
Hey, I agree about the threats and badgering and bullying. I’ve read some of it, and it really is incredibly stupid. But none of that changes the fact that this Benner guy played his cards really, really badly.
Lets say you take your toddler to a kid-centered, pirate-themed restaurant for her birthday. Okay. Do you really think your kid needs to know that the guy making sandwiches is paid too little to repay his student loans? Or that the waitress in the princess dress is really Amber Bangs, much-loved porn star?
My bet is that you don’t, even if, like me, you’re deeply concerned about the financial hardships of youth. Does this mean you’re engaged in some nefarious conspiracy of silence and anti-student subterfuge? God, no! It just means you’re not an angry, axe-grinding moron.
:winkgrin:
Have you actually read the petitioners’ complaint? Its basic intent has nothing to do with whether or not people should eat meat, or any other cosmic issue in that vein. It’s really just a complaint about truth in advertising and fair play, and I can totally see where its initial impulse is coming from.[/QUOTE]
I disagree about the basic intent, because somehow the tags have it under animal rights, animal cruelty, and veganism, NOT false or misleading advertising.
I think like everything else, the intent started with “don’t kill this cow we all love, we had no idea you were going to eat her” and ended up being co-opted into some kind of animal rights veganism issue by others who had their own axes to grind. That’s what happens when a crowd of people with agendas get together on social media. Obviously this mother has seen the power of a flash mob and decided to try to invoke it. Now it’s grown bigger than the original issue, obviously. Frankly, if they wanted to buy the cow, sell it to them. Let it be their problem. Why was he holding out and being stubborn about it on principal? He could have made a positive splash by doing the “Charlottes Web” thing and “Saving the cow” because the families loved her. Instead, he whisks the cow away, adding fuel to the fire. Or just kill the cow and say – she’s dead in the freezer, deal with it.
I am sorry this man got threats, I don’t understand why this happens to people these days, perhaps because of the anonymity of the internet? People today seem to have this idea that they can do or say anything because no one will know who they are, or worse, death threats are an effective control of ideas you don’t like. Where is this coming from? It’s showing up in certain political campaigns, too.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
