A View from a Different Angle: What is National Geographic Really Looking For?

I will never forget one morning about five years ago when one of my guys caught my attention while we were working cattle.  He was upset because someone was standing on top of their vehicle in the middle of an alfalfa field about a quarter of a mile east of our corrals.

"Working cattle": giving vaccinations to newly arrived animals which keep them healthy...

“Working cattle”: giving vaccinations to newly arrived animals.  These vaccinations would be the bovine equivalent of the “flu shot”…

It turned out to be a neighbor who was simply looking to take some pictures of cattle for a local publication, but I was very proud of my employee for his diligence in following our farm’s biosecurity plan.  I worked very carefully with my veterinarian to write this plan which includes provisions for both animals and people who come onto our property.


Today, as part of my Progressive Beef protocols, I require all visitors to sign in upon arrival at the feed yard.  I do this simply to protect both my employees and my animals.  I have never turned anyone down that requested entrance to the farm, but I always ask that they seek permission before entering.

My girls and I a couple of years ago in front of my biosecurity sign.  The young woman pictured with us now works for Senator Mike Johanns in Washington DC...

My girls and I a couple of years ago in front of my biosecurity sign. The young woman pictured with us now works for Senator Mike Johanns in Washington DC…

I do my best to make my feed yard transparent.  I believe that every American has a right to know where their beef comes from.  For this reason, I give tours, answer emails from readers, and blog extensively about my life raising cattle.  I am proud of what I do and like to share it with those who are interested.

This morning, I became aware of an article that ran in the Huffington Post.  The article reported that a professional photographer on contract with National Geographic magazine was arrested for trespassing when he took off and landed his paraglider on private property near a feed yard in Kansas.  The photographer, George Steinmetz, was taking pictures of the feed yard for a series of stories on “food issues” that will run in the magazine next year.

While I was very grateful to be mentioned in the comment section of the article, I was also disheartened when I read and investigated the actual article and altercation.  My greatest disappointment stemmed from the fact that neither Mr. Steinmetz nor National Geographic magazine contacted the feed yard to ask for a tour of the farm.

A picture of animals in my feed yard...

A picture of animals in my feed yard taken via horseback while I was doing our daily check of cattle health…

Rather than reaching out respectfully to the farmer and asking permission to visit the yard, Mr. Steinmetz trespassed onto private property and flew over the farm in a paraglider.  In doing this, both he and National Geographic magazine gave up a tremendous opportunity for learning and conversation with the owner and employees of the feed yard.  I cannot imagine how the view from 300 feet provided a better perspective of beef production than a one-on-one interaction with a cattle caregiver.

I am left to wonder if National Geographic really cares to truly understand the story of how beef is raised?

  • Do they know that each one of those animals spent the majority of its’ life grazing on a grass pasture, and was moved to the feed yard for the last few months in order to decrease the environmental footprint of beef?
  • Do they know that cattle are easily able to be comfortable and thrive living in a feed yard?
  • Do they know that each person that works at the feed yard is both a trained and dedicated animal caregiver?
  • Do they know that looking up to glimpse a paraglider directly above the yard was likely a scarey experience for those caregivers who worry about the well-being of their animals?

If the magazine truly wanted to understand food issues relative to beef farming wouldn’t they want to talk to a cattle farmer first hand?  Surely they could find someone who spends their days caring for cattle with whom to discuss this important topic?

Look no further, I volunteer!

Look no further, I volunteer!

I think that it is exciting that National Geographic magazine is going to write a series of articles about “food issues”.  However, I also think that a responsible media source would need to visit with farmers to gain an accurate understanding of the topic.  I challenge Mr. Steinmetz and National Geographic to help us all to open up a truthful dialog on food production.  A real understanding can only occur through conversation and sharing.  This is truly impossible from 300 feet in the air…

A tour of my farm is waiting for you on the plains of Nebraska.  I simply request that you offer me the courtesy of calling before you arrive!


Filed under CAFO, General

38 responses to “A View from a Different Angle: What is National Geographic Really Looking For?

  1. Jed Droge

    I was able to locate Mr. Steinmatz via Facebook and link him your article. I sincerely hope that he considers your invitation.

    • Thank you, Jed! I really appreciate you taking the time to do that. I also hope that I hear from Mr. Steinmatz…

      Have a good night,

  2. I totally agree that calling before you arrive is common courtesy–and asking permission to land a paraglider on private land is the law! I would imagine if I went to Mr. Steinmetz’s house and sat on a chair in his backyard while waiting for him to come home, he might be a bit upset!

    I, too, invite anyone on a tour of my Kansas cattle ranch. A phone call in advance is appreciated, but I’m always happy to show someone around.

  3. Lillian Cot

    You sound so polite and courteous and I respect you for that , but the truth is that there is animal cruelty going on in many farms, many secret videos have shown it; why get so upset if there is nothing to hide?

    • Jeff

      When an invitation is extended…nothing is being hidden. When someone arrives unexpectedly, and illegally wherever…yeah, that has a tendency of being a little upsetting. Why assume that people are hiding things because other people illegally arrive on their property? (There’s all sorts of regulations on this that requires people to be hyper-vigilant to trespassers). Why not get in touch with Anne, take her up on her offer, and go see for yourself? Truth is not hidden.

    • Mark

      lillian their is child and spousal abuse that goes on in peoples houses so it is allright if I show up at your house unanounced and start filming to see if that is going on so I can show it to the authoraties

    • Hi Lillian,

      I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment. I sincerely hope that I sound courteous and polite as I strive to always be that way! My primary point is that neither the photographer nor the magazine approached the farmer/feed yard to ask for a tour. I am perplexed as to why everyone is assuming that the feed yard treats their animals inhumanely? I do not personally know the family that owns the feed yard in question, but I have heard from a reputable source that they are good people and take care of their animals. If this is the case, then NG missed a great opportunity to engage a cattle farmer in a conversation. If the purpose of the pictures was to create a series of articles to run in NG on “food issues”, then I think that good reporting would necessitate interacting with farmers–not trespassing on private property and taking pictures from the air.

      I am a huge proponent of “on farm transparency”, as well as a true believer in animal welfare. Both of these things are top priorities at my feed yard, and I work hard as a volunteer within the beef farming community to continue to improve farm animal care. I do not believe that animal cruelty has a place in food animal production, but I also do not think that the American public should automatically assume that cruelty exists. If Mr. Steinmetz and NG wanted pictures of a cattle farm, then they simply should have asked the owner of the farm. Many cattlemen are willing to share their farms, we simply are waiting for an interested person/media source to ask.

      Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. I hope that you will consider signing up to follow my blog. I would love to continue to interact and possibly address some questions that you might have.

      All the best,

  4. cecilia

    This is a food safety issue. I am sure you document any treatments animals receive, so there is your transparency in animal welfare. However many buyers are now requesting documentation on any visitors to the site- to prevent any disease transmission, or contamination, accidental or otherwise.Knowing who was on your property on a certain date aids in trace back if there is a outbreak. I have been a journalist for many years and would not dream of walking onto someone’s farm or ranch without permission.

    • Thanks for adding to the conversation Cecilia. You are correct, we document our cattle care and also have to be careful about visitors on site in order to protect our animals. It would be incredibly alarming to me to look up in the sky above my feed yard and see a stranger flying over at low altitude. I would worry about biosecurity/terrorist threats if this occurred on my farm.

      I have nothing to hide, but I have animals that are depending on me to protect them—not to mention millions of people who depend on the safety of my beef. My farm is open to visitors, but common courtesy (in addition to crew and animal safety) necessitates that those visitors make contact with the farm owner before arriving.

      What I am most upset about is that NG is going to write a series of articles about “food issues” without interacting with cattle farmers. This is not good reporting and is very bothersome to me.

      Thanks so much for chiming in! I appreciate your time and the information that you shared.


  5. scyther

    Anne, thanks for making a lot of interesting information about a feedlot operation available. I suspect that many operations are larger than yours and much less well managed, at least to the benefit of the animals and the workers.

    So many issues with this subject. Are feedlots an environmental benefit? I don’t know what that could mean. Raising cattle has become like all other large-scale activities: it is dominated by providing consumers what they have become accustomed to at the lowest possible price. Hence cattle are birthed and raised for a year or two where the climate makes that cheapest: FL and the gulf-coast region. Because the land in those areas produces poor-quality feed the cattle must be fattened where the feed is much higher-quality so as to produce the type of meat people are used to getting – Nebraska, for instance. It is not “environmentally” better to transport young cattle from FL or AL to NE, it merely makes economic sense when fossil fuel is still fairly cheap. There will come a time when the cattle are raised from birth to slaughter in one place, and the meat will vary by region, as will the crops and everything else, just as it was before it became cheaper to move things across continents and oceans rather than to pay regional labor rates or rely on regional supply.

    • Jeff

      What’s the basis of your suspicions?

      • scyther

        Jeff, the basis is common sense. Some (perhaps most?) CAFO’s are owned by corporations, investment groups, etc, rather than single families. It would stand to reason that the former ones would be larger and operated maximally for profit.

    • Hi Scyther,

      The vast majority of the cattle that I have in my feed yard are born and raised in Nebraska. I prefer to buy local animals, and then in turn sell them to a packing plant that is not far from my farm. I do believe that our family’s cattle feed yard helps to create a sustainable cycle for our diverse farm. We have a cattle feed yard, cattle pasture ground, and farm (crop) ground—my husband and I try very hard to be good stewards to both the land and our animals with a focus on sustainability.

      You are correct that it is a complicated issue/subject and that is why good interaction and dialog is so vitally important. It is for this reason that I am so disappointed with Mr. Steinmetz and NG magazine. Taking pictures from a paraglider and not initiating a conversation with the cattle farmer is not a viable way to have a respectful conversation. Quite frankly, I expect better out of a reputable magazine such as National Geographic.

      I very much appreciate your thoughts and thank you for adding to the conversation. No one is perfect–we can always get better! I hope that you will sign up and follow the blog so that we can continue to have a conversation.

      All the best,

      • scyther


        I appreciate the reply. It is refreshing when representatives from may be opposing camps of thought can have polite and intelligent discourse.

        Personally I feel that people consume far too much animal-based food in general, and if they are going to eat beef in particular, it should be from animals raised and slaughtered nearby. This raises the interesting reality that hardly anyone wants a slaughter-house nearby – certainly not near enough to hear, see, or smell. For example, a farm down the road from me was recently preserved from conversion to an equine estate to remain devoted to food production. Very good, certainly. However, now there is talk of going through the difficult process of certifying and building a slaughter-house there (which would be the first on this island, and save the few local cattle-raisers from having to export the animals to slaughter). I suspect all abutting neighbors will be opposed greatly even though no doubt all of them eat beef. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

        When I first began to garden it came as a bit of a shock to learn how much death there is around food-production. One cannot make compost and raise vegetables on any scale without doing some killing: of rats, mice, insects, etc, even deer if survival depended on it. One cannot store food without protecting it from vermin. Even though I am vegetarian after 16 years of raising most of my food I am more cognizant of this reality than most people who buy butchered animals at the market. So therefore I am well aware that the business of raising food is no stroll across the flowered meadow dotted with lovely cows.

        However, that said, do we (society) need CAFO’s in any shape or form?

      • That is a very interesting question and I believe that the answer lies in people’s personal food choices and nutritional needs. I might replace it with another–how much meat do people need to eat and also how much do they want to consume? Given the limited number of natural resources that exist on our planet, the answer to the above questions determines the answer to your question regarding CAFO’s.

        I suspect that you can ask 100 different people those questions and get 100 different answers. For example, I personally struggle with anemia so beef is an important part of my diet. Could I manage my health challenges in a different way? I don’t know—I honestly have not tried. I grow beef and I enjoy eating it, so I use that to help me remain healthy. You obviously do not need to eat beef/meat to remain healthy and have made the life choice to be a vegetarian. I respect that decision and also your desire to grow some of your own food. You are correct, growing food is challenging (whether it is vegetables or meat).

        I own a CAFO and personally believe that there is nothing harmful in a cattle feed yard. Likely that is because I manage my CAFO carefully in order to hold true to my personal values which includes both animal and environmental stewardship. I also have no problem with slaughter facilities–it is actually very convenient for me to have one close by (as you noted). I would agree with you that my openness toward packing plants makes me fairly unique.

        While economics do not drive every decision that I make (you made reference to economics above), it does play a role as the sustainability of my farm (and my family) is reliant on our ability to be economically viable. Incidentally, our farm is made up of several corporations and we set it up this way for business/tax purposes. I don’t think that being incorporated makes us any less concerned with values.

        I can recognize that some do not share my beliefs and that is great. Bouncing ideas off of each other allows for personal growth and that is always a good thing. What I find objection to is lacking empathy toward other people, and refusing to take the time to invest in a dialog and meaningful research.

        Thanks for reaching out. I hope that you will continue to read and share.

    • David

      I worked at a packing plant in Kansas for six years, and I can tell you that it is not feasible, moneywise or quality-wise, to transport cattle the distances you mentioned (Florida and Alabama to Nebraska, Kansas, etc). Cattle start getting stressed during transportation when the distance is over 150 miles, in which case beef quality goes down, cattle health goes down (as does their weight) and the price the cattle farmer gets for their beef is reduced as a result. It would take several days to transport cattle from the southern states to the northern/central Great Plains states as the cattle would have to be offloaded from the truck and pastured or put in a feedlot for at least a day or two before continuing the journey. The plant I worked at would not bring in cattle from much greater distances than 100 miles.

      • scyther


        I was told years ago by someone who seemed knowledgable (and originally from Nebraska as it happens) that most of the cattle started in the deep south are finished in west or midwest. Perhaps that isn’t true, I haven’t done any research on the matter. I know that the cattle raised in florida are sold off pretty young – I would suppose that from central florida they travel a lot more than 150 miles, but again I don’t know. Maybe they are slaughtered much younger than in the western states.

        One thing I am certain of, the soils in the south are old and severely leached from millennia of high rainfall. The feed cannot compare with that of the western states, and consequently as cattle get large it gets comparatively more expensive to keep them in good health.

  6. I can not wait to meet you some day! me and the girls will have to travel to Nebraska for a tour..but mostly to soak in what is Anne.

  7. HazelPF

    Keep up the good work. I do think blogs like yours are helping in getting people to understand issues from all sides. You handle these people with grace and do a much better job than me commenting on Huffpost.

    • Thank you for the support! And, thank you for placing the link to my blog site in the comment sections of articles. I really appreciate you sending some readers my way. Keep up the great work yourself!

      Bless you for diligently reading the HuffPost—I have a hard time (especially in the comment section) because of the bitterness and hatred that shows up in personal comments. I don’t understand that type of blanket negativism — I have always chosen to look for the good in people.

      Again, thanks for the referrals. I really appreciate it.
      All the best,

  8. Jeff

    scyther…since I can’t reply in-line…here you go at the bottom.

    While feeding operations may be owned by a variety of entities, and in a variety of sizes…in the end, even the corporate ones, want to maximize their profits. The best way to maximize profits is to ensure proper animal welfare, care and conditions. Cattle simply don’t gain weight to the point of readiness for market as fast in stressed and unhealthy environments. Making the environment less stressful for the animals is actually in the best interest of the facilities, regardless of size or ownership. I am no where naïve enough to think that they all get this accomplished…but also realistic enough to realize that the broad brush you have used is not based on fact and evidence…supposition and assumption. This is not the case of one bad apple.

    Personally, I prefer venison, specifically elk. Completely natural, nutritious and tastes great. Also enjoy beef, pork, bison, chicken and fish. Whether I need it or not is irrelevant to the question. The point is that I can have it, as little or as much as I want. I understand that you may not think that is appropriate, and that is perfectly fine as it applies to you. Not so much as it applies to everyone else. So, my answer to CAFOs is a resounding yes, and there’s a whole bunch of reasons for that answer.

    Also, while not directly raised in your response, but touching upon it…these ‘well intended folks’ also lead to the defunding of the USDA’s ability to inspect horse slaughter houses in the US. The end result was that these facilities were shut down. The should have been easy to see, but was blinded by emotion and romance, affect was the exponential increase in the mistreatment of horses in a variety of ways. It’s a complex issue and system. Whatever NG was attempting to do…which appears to be anything but something resembling objectiveness based on the tactic, likely would have produced a similar emotional reaction, that if acted upon without rational thought…would have made things worse.

    Interesting however is you sentiments on the raising of your food. If raising animals for human consumption is bad, whether in a CAFO or not, is bad or too much…why is it acceptable to kill animals to raise your food, and preserve your food? Are “vermin” any worse than a cow, pig, chicken or fish? Do you kill too many vermin to preserve your food? Circular, but the end results are the same, at least as far as our food supply is concerned…animals are killed for our purposes, whether it is to eat them, or to keep them from eating the things we will eat. Circular, because that is all part of the great circle of life, that in my opinion, is so complex, it is actually pretty simple.

    • scyther


      I’ll be the first to admit I have no actual experience with CAFO’s (probably I have learned more reality from Anne’s website than anywhere else, since no other owners appear to be so forthcoming). All I can do is apply logic and educated guesswork. Logic says that probably some of the press about beef-raising is skewed toward sensationalism, since the media does that religiously (so to speak). Logic also tells me that economy of scale makes a CAFO a way to make serious money out of what is close to profit-less otherwise. For example, I am very familiar with small-scale vegetable operations here on the east coast. Even when tiny operators have access to free land (rent and tax free) and to the top of the retail market for sales they can’t get what a house-cleaner gets on their labor, in the end. I suspect growing beef is something like that – to make any significant profit requires massive investment in land and equipment, massive movement of animals, and access to relatively cheap labor, or find a way to reduce labor to very low levels per unit. Hence, a CAFO.

      As to your philosophical point about killing/eating of meat: I was hesitant to mention my vegetarianism because I didn’t want the discussion to devolve into a typical schism where the two sides seem to view each other across a vast gap. I mentioned it to illustrate the reality that the great majority of consumers whatever their eating habits have almost no idea of what goes on to get food from field or forest or vast poultry-shed to the grocery store. I find the irony that I as a vegetarian have more understanding of that from the direct experience of attempting to raise food than most non-vegetarians somewhat sharp.

      So no, rats don’t deserve to die. They exist in large numbers because my gardening operations provide them lots of food and water. If I don’t poison them when the population gets high they will start eating seed out of trays, ripe fruit off of plants, and ultimately find away into my house. This reality exists no matter what I have decided to eat. Deer do not deserve to die either. They exist in excessively high numbers because we have extirpated the predators and our ornamental gardens provide them lots of food. They are tolerated in such high numbers in the eastern half of the country because most of the food is produced in the western half. A strange state of affairs. They are one reason small veg growers here have a hard time – the high cost of excluding deer. My dietary choices don’t change the fact that local hunters and venison-eaters are too few (actually, come to think, my choice makes them too few by at least one!).

      Likewise, I suggest that your dietary choices don’t have much relevance to whether or not a CAFO is a net benefit or whether it is a net problem for society and environment. Really a CAFO exists because most people do not want to raise and butcher meat. Deer exist excessively because most people do not want to kill and eat them. Factory-farms in CA and AZ exist because people in wintery climates must have lettuce and tomatoes in january instead of cabbage.

      All choices that too few people are thinking about, in my opinion.

      • Jeff

        Hey…Invite me out…it would be a win-win on the deer. And I wasn’t trying to examine it across a great divide, but was trying to understand what it was you were getting at…at least with the somewhat tilted view of CAFOs without a lot of knowledge of them, and then writing about your gardening. Philosophically…I suppose I can agree that that almost nothing “deserves” to die, but a lot of stuff must die, for our survival and theirs.

        As far as CAFOs go, I think regardless of size, your view of the economics is fairly accurate, but you’re missing the final piece. In order for CAFOs to be profitable, they have to concern themselves with the welfare of the animals. If they don’t, the animals don’t produce. If the animals don’t produce, there is no profit.

        Sure, there are bad examples, that the media and interest groups highlight in an attempt to use a broad brush. It’s a fallacy. It’s also the point of Anne’s blog on this subject…why is the media afraid to just ask and see themselves?

  9. scyther

    Please! Come on the first day of the season and take the limits in every weapons category. We got plenty of fishermen, not enough fish, too many deer with not enough hunters. Apparently hunting is not as much fun.

    Back to CAFO’s: my main practical problem with them (non-philosophical) is the result of the concentration. Waste. I’d be interested to know how the liquid manure from the containment pond is used in Anne’s operation. Is it sprayed on growing corn? Sprayed on winter/spring fields to be in fodder? Is all the waste able to be recycled through crops?

    • We use everything (liquid and solid) that is created on the farm for fertilizer. The liquid waste is held in a lined (EPA approved) Livestock Waste Control Facility until we apply it through an irrigation pivot onto our crops during the summer growing season. I built a larger LWCF about three years ago to better allow us to hold the water (while preventing any seepage) until our crops needed it. The solid waste is scraped/collected out of the pens and spread on farm ground as well. We haul manure out of pens about 3 times per year and apply it to farm ground in the fall/winter/early spring months. We do extensive soil, manure, and water testing to ensure that all nutrients are applied at agronomic rates. If you look on the right side of the home page of the blog site there is a “Topic” section–you might find the posts that are archived under the heading “Environmental Stewardship” interesting. In particular, these two address your question: https://feedyardfoodie.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/environmental-sustainability-how-do-i-care/

      I have quite a few pictures up showing the equipment that we use to recycle and apply the natural fertilizer that my animals make.

      Good question–thanks for asking!

      • scyther

        Thanks for the reply, Anne. I’ll look at your links.

      • scyther

        OK, I read those.

        Your viewpoints are well posed, and I think I understand all the points. You speak of how moisture, basic nutrients and sunlight come together to create starches that are the basis of food. Quite so. You speak of how that must be done in a super-efficient manner because so few people participate in agriculture. Clearly that is the present state of affairs, but my viewpoint is that extreme efficiency is not the best solution, rather the better solution is to return more people to working in agriculture. I think this for a number of reasons, one being that the extremely efficient use of human labor as typified by your operation (which I hasten to say is obviously very well-operated in almost every imaginable way, such that I doubt that yours is a typical CAFO – but you would be a better position to know that) is dependent on intense use of energy-dense and cheap fossil fuel.

        Of course you know how much energy is required to cultivate and plant those acres of corn and alfalfa, to move all that solid and liquid manure, to get in, chop, store and then distribute all that feed. This is of course why a CAFO did not exist a century ago, not so much that the technologies that you mention did not exist, but because petroleum was not able to be so effectively converted to replace human and draft-animal energy. Replace and multiply a thousand-fold. That is a phenomenon of the past 40-50 years.

        As we travel down into the world of energy-descent, operations like CAFO’s will cease to be profitable, and we will return to raising beef in the least energy-intensive way, even though it will mean far less cattle and less per-capita beef consumption. An operation like yours will find, I suspect, that the profit will start to lie in crops that are more direct to human consumption and thus represent far more food-per-calorie of energy expended. Maize and beans for human consumption, for example.

      • Glad that you found the links and could make sense of my thoughts. My crystal ball is fuzzy as to what the future holds for food production, but I am committed to always being open to new methods as I search for improvements on the farm. It will certainly be interesting to see where we go as the population continues to expand far beyond the scope of our resources.

        I agree that it would be good to get more people back involved with farming–what I wonder is if there is the necessary work ethic, and the desire for that kind of life within our population? As you noted before, it is a challenging life.

        All the best,

  10. Rex

    I would love to have some overhead photos that show cattle in a feedlot, cattle around a windmill, cattle on a hot summer day standing in the corner of a large pasture, and cattle in a mob grazing pasture.
    I suspect the visual impact would be about the same for all of the above.
    It amazes me how social cattle are, how they like to be in the crowd and how much people like the notion of a lonely contented cow in a big pasture.

    • I agree, Rex. The problem is perception and understanding. It is so difficult to accurately judge beef animal production if you do not understand how a bovine thinks and naturally acts.


  11. Connie McCloy

    I too am a wife on a family cattle feedlot operation. We operate in the Texas Panhandle. We are a low stress feedlot and are looking into getting certified as such. Low stress just makes sense for the cattle and the people involved. We are open to showing our feedlot to anyone interested in visiting. Visitors especially overhead would excite the cattle, thus producing stress. A phone call first would be appreciated. That way a time convenient to all could be arranged. We document feed and treatments so as to insure the quality of the beef we produce. Never do we want to produce beef that is not high quality. Thank you for standing up and speaking clearly and truthfully about the cattle industry from the farmer/rancher/feedlot view.

    • Hi Connie,

      Thanks so much for the support and Good Job on the Low Stress Handling! I am so glad to hear that you have chosen to go down that road with your feed yard. It has been a wonderful thing for both our cattle and our people.

      I would love to meet you someday and share thoughts relative to the best way to care for cattle. I always enjoy hearing ideas from others that dedicate their lives to good animal care and safe beef production.

      Take care,

  12. Wow Anne quite a conversation here in the comments section. I am so happy you are around to educate people on the facts of your feed yard and general cattle care, etc. Jeff also had some good points and the two of you seem to work well together to answer questions. I also use your site to educate other in my area as many have a skewed vision of how food is raised. I also read the article on the post… a shame he just didn’t ask and save a lot of people a lot of trouble including himself. 😉

    • Kim,

      As always, thank you for reading and sharing! Jeff is a neat guy (my husband’s cousin who mostly is more like a brother). He now calls Wyoming home, but we still claim him 🙂

      I share your thoughts and wish that more people would simply ask and engage—it is the chaos that exists with poor communication and media hype that costs our country dearly on many different issues.

      It sounds like you all are keeping busy with summer chores–hope that the chickens are staying home like they are supposed too!


  13. Pingback: Best Wildlife Photos, Prints, Animal Pictures, Buy Prints, Gallery — National Geographic ~ Online relaxing | Online Relaxing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s