Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Vance Crowe Podcast is a thought-provoking and engaging show where Vance Crowe, a former Director of Millennial Engagement for Monsanto, and X-World Banker, interviews a variety of experts and thought leaders from diverse fields.
Vance prompts his guests to think about their work in novel ways, exploring how their expertise applies to regular people and sharing stories and experiences.
The podcast covers a wide range of topics, including agriculture, technology, social issues, and more. It aims to provide listeners with new perspectives and insights into the world around them.
Vance Crowe (02:51.674)
Welcome to the Ag Tribes Report. I'm your host Vance Crowe. Each week a co -host and I represent the perspectives of one of the many ag tribes that collectively make up U .S. agriculture. This week I am joined by Greg Gunthorpe, an artisanal producer and processor on a regenerative farm in Northeast Indiana. The Gunthorpe family has been raising pigs on pasture for at least four generations. Greg, glad to have you here. Welcome to the Ag Tribes Report.
Greg Gunthorp (03:20.333)
Great to be here, Vance. I'm excited about this.
Vance Crowe (03:23.41)
All right, well today we are going to be covering a lot of topics. We're gonna start with the farm bill and PivotBio trying to get their technology listed in that farm bill. We're gonna talk about the 70 horses killed with tainted feed and we're gonna talk about Pilgrim's Pride settling their lawsuit after years of fighting about whether or not they were fair to the people that grow their boiler chickens.
So of course we are also going to review Greg's Peter Thiel paradox and we're gonna hear about his worthy adversary and we're gonna do all of this in just 30 minutes. So let's jump straight into the headlines. Starting first with a story that comes from X. I was flipping through X yesterday and saw Zach Townsend, an owner of TNT Agronomy, pioneer hybrid and premier dealer for Precision Planting.
Greg Gunthorp (04:13.594)
Okay.
Vance Crowe (04:16.914)
And he tweeted, word on the street in DC is that the pivot bio lobbyists are working to get pivot mandated into the farm bill. And it might be worth it to reach out to your state rep and follow this up the ladder. So as soon as this happens, there are all kinds of tweets going on. And so I decided to look into it. And if you look at what pivot bio is saying, they actually have been saying from the very beginning, they posted something back in the spring of 2024.
Greg Gunthorp (04:43.739)
Stabbing on.
Vance Crowe (04:43.89)
That they were trying to influence the farm bill on an on an article that they titled pivot bio is pleased at the outline Released by Senate Agriculture Committee chairwoman Debbie Stenbrode and Stabenbo, how do you even say that? Stabbing on all right anyway, so they jumped in to the feed and said no our goal is simple We're trying to make it easier for American farmers to be able to use some of these programs that are put out there by the USDA
Greg Gunthorp (05:11.896)
you
Vance Crowe (05:13.498)
I even got a call from Amanda De Jong, who's from Government Affairs, telling me that it's all about the product, how it's designed to give a... So what PivotBio is doing is they're putting a seed coating on a seed and it's supposed to help them be better at doing nitrogen fixation from the air. So we can go into a lot of details on this, but maybe let's just start, Greg, with what do you think? Should private companies be lobbying for what they wanna see in the farm bill?
Greg Gunthorp (05:24.536)
That's a great question, but you know the I'm not really sure that we should limit private companies for lobbying to get things in the farm bill because
My take on it is we probably have a Wall Street farm drill that, you know, we've got multinational corporations that are lobbying to get their desires into the farm bill. So, you know, the farm bill is heavily lobbied from all kinds of interests, public, private, and I personally believe that we ought to probably get more interest that actually benefit independent family farms.
Vance Crowe (06:18.374)
Yeah, I mean, it's actually totally astounding what all goes into the farm bill. It's also kind of shocking that this is an issue being talked about on X because as far as I can tell, the farm bill has been just completely frozen. Nobody talking much about anything. I think most people expecting that because they got that extension to September 30th before it has to pass, that nothing really is gonna happen until after the election. What do you think? Is the farm bill just frozen right now and this is all people pontificating?
Greg Gunthorp (06:44.166)
yeah, I think it's all people pontificating. You know, I follow DC and farm bill politics quite a bit, and I see no chance at all that we get a farm bill out of this or even out of a lame deck session. It's going to the next one, no doubt. You know, so what I actually see about this specific topic, though, I think it's kind of cool that we as a society now
are starting to talk about biologicals. We've had an agriculture that is extremely productive and efficient, but we've had an agriculture that has used a huge amount of inputs over the years. And now we're, as a society, on both sides of the aisle, are starting to talk about some alternatives to that. And that, to me, is encouraging.
I'm not sure that personally I'm looking for inputs to create those biologicals. You know, we have a regenerative farm and, you know, I'd prefer something like clover to fix nitrogen or, you know, adaptive multi -paddock grazing and bringing the grass down and building carbon to create fertility on our farm. But I think it's really cool that we're looking at biologicals to take nitrogen out of the air rather than producing it with natural gas.
Vance Crowe (08:07.302)
Yeah, mean, the microbials are everywhere, right? It's a little like when I was talking with Amanda, she pointed out, it's a little like saying crop protection, right? You're saying something that's so big and so encompassing. And with this particular one, I think they're trying to say, when farmers are trying to use some of these conservation programs set up by the USDA, then a lot of them are written with very old technology in mind, and they're very restrictive.
From her perspective, PivotBio was just saying, hey, why don't we allow additional technologies, make the writing very explicit that you could use this other kinds of technology. But when I see it on Twitter, I see people saying, this is like we're in a down economy, who's gonna be adding more to their products? This seems like a way to get this mandated so that farmers have to do this. What do you think is like where are people right or wrong on this issue?
Greg Gunthorp (08:37.94)
I mean,
People are absolutely correct that the government tends not to be progressive and the government tends to be way behind the times. And people are very, very wise in being worried about concentrated power of the government and forcing things on to independent farmers. I mean, I'm worried about that also. I think it's probably somewhere in between though. I can't picture the government forcing.
people to use biologicals. think in general when you get all said and done, the USDA has actually done a pretty decent job of holding up carrots rather than grabbing sticks to get to force farmers to do things as far as crop farmers go.
Vance Crowe (09:49.328)
Yeah, my sense is that this is an attempt to use taxpayer dollars, which is supposedly a carat to get people to do stuff. And it makes it so the farmer is not actually the one that's gonna be footing the bill for trying this product out, for better or for worse. I think they're just trying to use the system that's there just like everybody else is with the farm bill. And you're right, it is a huge trough for large corporations. All right, anything else before we move to the next headline?
Greg Gunthorp (10:15.843)
That'd be about all.
Vance Crowe (10:17.682)
All right, well, this is one sent in by you, something I had not heard of, but this just came out in the last about two weeks that Pilgrim's Pride has a $100 million settlement over chicken farmers pay. So Pilgrim's Pride, one of the largest US poultry producers agreed to pay $100 million to settle a claim that it conspired with rivals to underpay chicken farmers and...
Reuters was pointing out that Tyson Foods, Sanderson Farms, Coke Foods, Purdue Foods, all previously settled for large amounts, multi -millions, and Pilgrim's Pride, it looks like maybe had the largest bill of them all. When they did do this settlement, they accepted no responsibility. They did not accept that they had done anything wrong, but after years, more than seven years of hard -fought litigation,
Greg Gunthorp (10:51.16)
.
Vance Crowe (11:08.658)
which included over 1 .7 million court documents to be reviewed. Greg, what do you think? Poultry business is vertically integrated and the margin's very, very small. Are lawsuits expected when the system is so streamlined?
Greg Gunthorp (11:14.096)
You know, I actually believe that the United States Department of Ag, Packer and Stockyards Administration has been charged to keep an eye on this to ensure that farmers get a fair shake in the marketplace. And, you know, we all know that when concentration gets too severe,
that individual farmers have a really hard time negotiating against those concentrated powers. And the chicken farmers in the United States have got a raw deal for decades. And it's only got worse as, you know, only a handful of companies control the chicken industry. And, you know, lots of them have complained for a long time that the companies set up areas and no other person can bid for the use of their chicken barn.
And know, when you only got one place that you can use your chicken barn for, you have zero negotiation powers. And so I was elated to see this lawsuit come out. A good friend of mine, Dudley Butler, was instrumental in helping this lawsuit get started. If you remember, he was up there at the Packer and Stockyards Administration during the Obama years, and they literally ran him out of town. So, you know, I mean, this
That's quite a beast up there in DC and it's quite a beast to try to get around any of this, to get a handle on any of this antitrust enforcement. one thing, I'm not gonna get into politics because I'm actually not a fan of either side of the aisle, but one thing this administration has done more so than any administration since Teddy Roosevelt is that they've actually done some antitrust work. And I strongly believe.
We don't need a concentrated government and we don't need concentrated business that both of those have some very strong problems in our society. So I think this is a great win for the chicken farmers in the United States and I think it's a great win for the direction of bringing us back to something where all of us have a better chance of being independent.
Vance Crowe (13:34.61)
Yeah, you mentioned how small the chicken world is. There were 24 ,354 complainants on this class action lawsuit. And that sounds like a big number, but really those are individuals that have a few chicken barns. with those chicken barns, every single aspect of it is controlled from the company. Send them the chicks, they send them the feed, they tell them this is what you're gonna be delivering.
And with that kind of concentration, without the ability to go somewhere else without competition, it makes it very, very difficult to push back. Do you know any more details of the story about what exactly it was that they were pushing back on?
Greg Gunthorp (14:15.229)
yeah, good friends of mine, Bertram's, were one of the people, but there several of them. If you Google Craig Watts, he was one of the whistleblowers, talked about the predatory practices, but basically, they could never speak up about any of these issues. But you know, that whole tournament system,
where they're put against each other and basically half of them are gonna lose money regardless because the top half make money, the bottom half always lose money. But you know, as you mentioned, they don't control any of the variables to decide whether their chickens are gonna do better. You know, they don't control what chicks they get, they don't control what feed they get, if they open their mouth, they get worse. You know, so it's a no -win situation. you know, I always jokingly say,
The only thing that they own on the farm is the mortgage, the mortalities and the manure. And I wish I was joking, but that's really all they own in the whole situation. you if you only got to sign your name on the dotted line one day of your life and you're a contract chicken farmer and the mortgage is high enough, you have no choice but to be a contract chicken farmer because you lose the farm if you open your mouth or you do anything else. And you've got one company that you deal with. It's literally
In my mind, it's buying a very, very expensive job.
Vance Crowe (15:40.656)
Wow, well that's a really interesting perspective and I'm glad to have heard it. I'm sure the poultry companies themselves would have something else to say, but many of them were not commenting on any of these stories. So it seems like this has been one of those class action lawsuits that led everybody to go to their corners, fight for seven years, and now it's finally shaking out. So I hope your friends have done okay throughout all this. All right, moving on to headline three.
This is the last headline of the day and it's really tragic one. A feed company takes responsibility for 70 horse deaths in a single day. This I got out of Sports Illustrated of all places. The rodeo industry has been devastated at the recent loss of dozens of horses owned by Buhleter and Sun Rodeo Company. Generations of talented bucking stock died after ingesting what was reportedly tainted feed.
Greg Gunthorp (16:28.361)
I think its trade name would be Rumensin. I think the chemical name is Mumensin or Munensin.
Vance Crowe (16:35.631)
So initial reports are speculating that the horses had all been poisoned with an ingredient called monosin. Is this one you're familiar with?
Vance Crowe (16:50.384)
Yeah, that's right. And so these are actually an ionos for which is a feed supplement for cattle. In fact, it's in most cattle feeds, certainly in CAFOs. but the challenge is that it is actually toxic to horses, even incredibly small doses. So it appears there was some kind of problem with either a sensor or how well things were cleaned out. So in an open letter signed by the president of the Livestock Nutrition Center,
which is the place that is responsible, accepting responsibility. He said, words are cheap, but we are dedicated to assist and support the Buehler family and make this right because our customers and employees expect and deserve it. Greg, you're a business owner. How does a business that accidentally poisons its clients' horses survive?
Greg Gunthorp (17:27.259)
Thank you.
Greg Gunthorp (17:38.023)
This is such a tragic situation. But you know, when you get all said and done, you know, and I don't want to make light of it, but I'm sure it was an accident somewhere through the process. willfully puts ruminants in horse feed. know, horses, and I think dogs would be highly susceptible to this too. But you know, as you mentioned, it was commonly fed. My family fed cattle up till 1985.
And I think that we used it when the calves were coming in. I think it's commonly put in for coccidiosis. It's also, I think, commonly used because it's a really good growth promoter. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for that. you know, I think that it comes back to my other comment, though, you know, on concentration, know, independent feed companies,
You know, it sounds like by the statement that he makes, they're going to stand by this. I don't know what exactly that means. It's probably going to be tragic to their business also. And I'd just be willing to bet you that they just feel absolutely sick about this. Nobody would ever want this to happen.
Vance Crowe (18:53.426)
Yeah, I was contacted by a guy that runs a feeding operation with cattle and he said, looks like it could be a very, very small accident that turned into a terrible tragedy. 70 horses is almost inconceivable. You think about not just the price of those animals, particularly if they're in rodeo competitions, if they're studying out, if they're doing all the things that work horses do to make money for their owners.
But then also people are so attached to horses. So you have to figure these had owners that loved them, that cared for them for years and years and years. So an absolute tragedy.
Greg Gunthorp (19:28.856)
Yeah, it's huge tragedy, know, and people are for sure attached to horses and their pets. mean, there's, yeah, it's just bad. don't know. I don't know what a person does in that situation.
Vance Crowe (19:43.152)
Well, we hope for the best and know that man, mistakes happen, but oftentimes in business somebody has to pay for it. So we will track this and see what ends up happening both with the Livestock Nutrition Center and with the the Butler and Sun Rodeo Company. So I will report back on that. So that's gonna do it for the news section of this. If you have news you think we should cover, you can always send it to me on x -advancetro or you can...
send it to me in an email, vance at vancecro .com. I have to say that almost all of the stories that I've reported on in the last two weeks have been sent to me. So definitely I know that I'm interested in hearing what is going on in your ag tribe. All right, now onto the Bitcoin land price report. Greg, what county do you live in and what does an acre of good land go for in terms of US dollars up there?
Greg Gunthorp (20:37.483)
I'm in LaGrange County, so up in the northeast corner of Indiana, and
Good land would sell for about $13 ,000, $14 ,000. So I'm gonna say $13 ,000.
Vance Crowe (20:50.513)
All right, so if you were gonna do that at the current Bitcoin price of 56 ,100, it was a little low when I was making these calculations, we're somewhere around 0 .23 Bitcoin per acre. So in other words, one Bitcoin would buy you just below four acres of farmland in LaGrange County. How do you feel about that? Would you like a Bitcoin or an acre of land?
Greg Gunthorp (21:15.97)
I'd like an acre of land more, short funny story. I was at a dinner in Denver back when Bitcoin was a dollar and there was a guy two seats down from me trying to talk everybody at dinner into buying 200 Bitcoins just as a joke. I didn't have slightest idea what Bitcoins were, but man, I sure wish I'd have bought those 200 Bitcoins. I was too busy trying to get myself onto a podcast from a radio show in New York.
for the person who was sitting beside me, but I can still to this day wish I had bought 200 Bitcoin. I'd probably be sitting somewhere besides right here right now.
Vance Crowe (21:51.333)
Ha ha ha ha.
Yeah, I think that for the next probably 30, 40 years, we're gonna hear all these stories of times when people had a chance to buy it. And I think it's entirely possible that people will say, my dad got it for $56 ,000 and that will be a very, very low price, but who knows? All right, go ahead.
Greg Gunthorp (22:12.001)
Well, the land's kind of the same way, right? My grandpa bought whole bunches of land. He bought the land right across the road from where I'm sitting, $172 an acre. And when he passed away, he said that every bit of land he bought, he never thought any of it was cheap. You know, it would be worth that 13, 14 ,000 an acre now.
Vance Crowe (22:34.294)
I couldn't agree more. think that when you look back on things, they always look cheap, but in the moment you gotta really grin and bear it. All right, now we're gonna go to your Peter Thiel paradox. This is where I ask Greg, what is something that you believe that almost no one you know agrees with you on?
Greg Gunthorp (22:41.12)
Yeah, right.
Greg Gunthorp (22:52.927)
I would say the thing that I believe that most in the direct marketing and local food movement don't believe is that I believe that it's not regulations that put most of the small processors and it's not regulations that keep most of the small processors out. Then I believe that it's just sheer economics. Economy of scale is real and that, you know, it costs a lot. It's a very labor management and capital intensive business.
And it just does not work economically at a really small scale compared to the industry.
Vance Crowe (23:30.332)
So when you're saying this, it's like you're absolutely killing it on how much I disagree with you because my natural instinct is to say it's the regulations and the amount of inspectors that come by and say, well, you know, got to get aluminum back here in this storage room. And that's, you know, going to cost you about a quarter of a million dollars. And I'll be back in six weeks to check to see if you did it. But until then, you can't sell any meat. That's my perspective of it, largely informed by Jason Mock, but also just kind of my understanding of government.
What's wrong with my perspective on that?
Greg Gunthorp (24:02.152)
Well, I should first mention we actually get three USDA inspectors per day. So it's not six weeks later that they're coming back. They're coming back that day or tomorrow to make sure that you actually change something or they're going to halt your operations. But I think the problem with that perspective is that when you get all said and done, think we all, anybody that's getting animals processed has an expectation that their processor
as facility is spotless when they start in the morning. They have an expectation that they're going to put labels on them that are correct. They have an expectation that their people are going to know how to butcher the animal, that they're going to know how to cut it up, all of the things that professionalism requires. I think that the owners have an expectation that, you know, we're going to build the facility so that the floors slope to the drain, so that the walls are washable, so that we can actually clean the facility, all of the things that are required to be able to do those things efficiently.
and we're going to have to build it at a scale that we can actually run pounds through the thing. And nowadays, that's a facility that's millions of dollars. And lots of people talk about that the battle is getting their product processed under USDA inspection. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's only, and don't get me wrong, that's a hard hill to get up. But it's only when you get to the top of that hill that you realize that it's the mountain behind you that you have to figure out a means to sell.
into this marketplace that you actually can fit into. And your product's way more expensive because you're a lot smaller. You got a lot more labor per pound that you're producing. You got a lot more facility cost per pound you're producing. And you have to compete against these guys that are literally bringing in like on the beef side. You have to compete against these guys that are importing the cheapest beef in the world from 20 other countries.
Vance Crowe (25:56.357)
So you're saying that the reason that this keeping, that we don't see this proliferation of small farmers that are raising their own cattle is not because of the regulations saying, hey, there's all these barriers that you've got to get through. It's the fact that just by sheer volume, you're not going to be able to compete with commodity meat packing. And that's what's keeping them out.
Greg Gunthorp (26:16.783)
Right, I'm saying that their price is two to three times the price of what everybody else beating on that same restaurant's door can sell it for. And I'm saying, yeah, that price is what's keeping them out. And they've got to get a lot bigger to even get remotely close to that price.
Vance Crowe (26:33.948)
Well, I remember in Jason's episode when we did Advanced Crow podcast with him, he talked about seeing the scale of some of these large meat cutting operations. I've seen one myself. They're just enormous. But at the same time, I'm pushing back on this because I know guys that are raising beef and they want to sell it to me, but in order to sell it across state lines, they have to go get a USDA inspector. I don't think that USDA inspector is making their floor any cleaner or making them
you know, operate any better, but it definitely is adding costs and time and, you know, permission into the system. And I think if they were able to just sell to their friends and neighbors, it would be a lot easier for them.
Greg Gunthorp (27:12.537)
I mean, don't get me wrong. I agree with everything that you said there. The regulations are very difficult, especially for the really smallest players, and they are definitely a barrier to entry. I do not believe, though, that if we got rid of the regulations, because we technically have none, we have exemptions in the poultry side.
And we just got done talking about that the poultry industry is extremely consolidated and controlled by a handful of corporations. The little pasture poultry people, almost none of them compete in the wholesale market. And you can slaughter up to 20 ,000 chickens on your farm in almost all states with no inspection, unless the state has a law that's different than that. USDA doesn't stop you from that. So it's the equivalent of the prime act in poultry.
We don't have that in beef or red meat. Congressman Massey keeps arguing for it. And I do not personally believe that that's going to just cause transformational change in the beef industry. Will it make a few farms have the ability to sell to you or to their neighbors? Yeah, and I think that would be great. But it's not going to change where Disney gets their beef. It's not going to change where the restaurants downtown get their beef. They're not going to buy uninspected meat.
So it's not going to overnight transform the meat industry. The people that are still going to sell to them, whether there's USDA or not, those restaurant customers, our restaurant customers are going to require a sanitation level that's at least equal to what USDA requires. Or they're just plain not going to buy the product.
Vance Crowe (28:55.227)
Well, I will absolutely take your point that there are large markets that they have absolutely no way to get rid of that liability of the small farmer that isn't getting USDA inspected. And so they're gonna want all of that. And maybe it isn't enough for small farmers to be able to produce if the USDA gets out of the way. But I'd still like to see them get out of the way even if it doesn't change the entire system.
Greg Gunthorp (29:19.565)
I mean, I don't disagree with you. I think it'd be good. I've said all along, we ought to have exemptions, we ought have safe harbors for the smallest inspected ones, and then we ought to have safeguards for consumers. And I think that those, we need regulations that are relevant to the scale of the producer and the processor.
Vance Crowe (29:40.997)
Sounds great. This is an excellent Peter Thiel paradox. I'm going to give you a nine three. I think that you've gotten the highest score mostly because I absolutely disagree with you, but I'm really, really glad you brought it up. Now moving on to the worthy adversary section where we spotlight individuals that challenge our perspectives. So we don't ignore criticism that would help us get better. Greg, who is your worthy adversary?
Greg Gunthorp (30:07.061)
This one took me a while to think of it and and I got to say I've matured a lot through my social media process because I thought of a few but I thought now they still have me blocked so I'm not gonna mention them but I think the one that challenges my thinking the most is probably Wanda Patsky Minnesota Farm Living fellow hog farmer and a really good hog farmer and seems like just a good person in Minnesota but
We definitely raise hogs in a different production system than what she does and have a very different perception of the hog industry.
Vance Crowe (30:47.449)
And how would you describe hers? Could you steel man her perspective?
Greg Gunthorp (30:50.804)
You know, she's much more in favor of confinement, large operations, and is not really opposed to the consolidation in the industry.
Vance Crowe (31:08.604)
Sounds good. You know, Greg, I am gonna throw you up as my worthy adversary this week. You're gonna go on the list. We keep a list of worthy adversaries and that's because the way you got on the Ag Tribes report is you were saying like, hey, I'm too hot for this. But I appreciate it because you got my attention and I was definitely glad that I brought you on to hear your perspectives that it is not just the regulation that's keeping people out. It's the economics. So you're gonna go on that list as well, but I think it's a good list to be on.
If you in the audience would like to see the list of worthy adversaries, we put a link to it in the show notes. It's also on my lists. So it's just called the worthy adversaries list. Thanks for your good choice there on Wanda. I know I've known Wanda for a long time. She's a great lady. All right, so.
Greg Gunthorp (31:55.133)
Thank
Vance Crowe (31:56.901)
Greg, I wanna thank you so much for coming on. I also wanna thank our sponsors. We have Legacy interviews, recording family stories so that future generations have the opportunity to know their family history and farmtest .ag, a system that allows you to take what the marketers are telling you about their products and actually test it on your fields and see which ones not only yield the most, but which ones are more profitable.
Greg Gunthorp (31:58.495)
Vance Crowe (32:21.733)
Greg, thanks so much for coming on. If people wanted to learn more about your farm and operation, where should they go?
Greg Gunthorp (32:27.782)
can follow me on Twitter. We also have website. We don't do a lot on it, but gunthorpefarms .com. And then I'm on Twitter. I think it's GGunthorpe. Also have a Facebook. Follow me on Facebook. The usual social media places.
Vance Crowe (32:46.235)
Well, you're not hard to find. I was able to find you in a bunch of different places. Thanks so much for coming on. Join us next week for another Ag Tribes Report. And as always, feel free to disagree.