<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: So many Kentucky cattle, so few Kentucky steaks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333</link>
	<description>investigating agriculture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:04:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted O'Bannon</title>
		<link>http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333/comment-page-1#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted O'Bannon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/?p=1333#comment-206</guid>
		<description>Consider this:
Rather than taking Kentucky cattle out of state to the finishing feed lots, and slaughter, keep cattle on the individual farm using mobile slaughter units.  
This would be Kentucky produce beef from the farms to the fork at a higher rate of prophet to the coops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consider this:<br />
Rather than taking Kentucky cattle out of state to the finishing feed lots, and slaughter, keep cattle on the individual farm using mobile slaughter units.<br />
This would be Kentucky produce beef from the farms to the fork at a higher rate of prophet to the coops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Pianalto</title>
		<link>http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333/comment-page-1#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Pianalto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/?p=1333#comment-175</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the article. Good information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the article. Good information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carrie Oliver</title>
		<link>http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333/comment-page-1#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>Carrie Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 15:50:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/?p=1333#comment-154</guid>
		<description>One key question is transparency. I think it&#039;d be pretty easy to prove that the buyers of a product using the Kentucky Proud logo and stating that the beef is &quot;raised on Kentucky family farms&quot; would expect that beef to be from Kentucky, not Kentucky via Iowa and Minnesota. Few people like to feel snookered. Critchfield would do itself and all a favor by stating clearly that the beef originated in Kentucky but was finished elsewhere. Let the customer decide whether this is important or not.  As Alex notes above, a two tier system for Kentucky Proud would also go a ways toward providing consumers, chefs, and institutional buyers the transparency they deserve. 

The other reason to provide transparency is because it allows people to buy beef that appeals to their personal taste buds or values. After all, as with wine or whiskey, beef flavor and texture will vary depending on the farm, breed, crossbreed, growing &amp; finishing regions, specific diet, husbandry practices, pharmaceutical interventions, aging time &amp; technique, and talent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One key question is transparency. I think it&#8217;d be pretty easy to prove that the buyers of a product using the Kentucky Proud logo and stating that the beef is &#8220;raised on Kentucky family farms&#8221; would expect that beef to be from Kentucky, not Kentucky via Iowa and Minnesota. Few people like to feel snookered. Critchfield would do itself and all a favor by stating clearly that the beef originated in Kentucky but was finished elsewhere. Let the customer decide whether this is important or not.  As Alex notes above, a two tier system for Kentucky Proud would also go a ways toward providing consumers, chefs, and institutional buyers the transparency they deserve. </p>
<p>The other reason to provide transparency is because it allows people to buy beef that appeals to their personal taste buds or values. After all, as with wine or whiskey, beef flavor and texture will vary depending on the farm, breed, crossbreed, growing &amp; finishing regions, specific diet, husbandry practices, pharmaceutical interventions, aging time &amp; technique, and talent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/archives/1333/comment-page-1#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 15:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fgscholars.com/farmtofork/?p=1333#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Great article. My concern is that the small local farmers that process their meat in state will suffer as people start buying the &quot;Kentucky Proud&quot; meat. There very well may need to be a two-tier system for Kentucky Proud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article. My concern is that the small local farmers that process their meat in state will suffer as people start buying the &#8220;Kentucky Proud&#8221; meat. There very well may need to be a two-tier system for Kentucky Proud.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

