Justin Lindsey
Professor Gard
English 104
14 February, 2011
The Omnivore’s Delusion
Blake Hurst, the author of "The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals", is
trying to persuade others that industrial farming isn't as bad as people think. Hurst is targeting the
audience of people that are critical of farmers and their ways of farming. He says that "I'm so
tired of people who wouldn't visit a doctor who used a stethoscope instead of an MRI demanding
that farmers like me use 1930s technology to raise food" (Hurst 1). This is a strong statement that
backs up the intended audience because he is saying that people criticize farming but they
wouldn't continue to use the same old ways of marketing techniques or copying a paper so why
should they criticize how farmers improved their way of managing and improving production.
That statement is also the thesis of this article. In the article he gives plenty of examples of how
the "industrial" way of farming has actually helped and improved farming. He goes into how the
old ways of farming was dangerous for animals and more expensive to produce and more
expensive to consume for customers.
"Young turkeys aren't smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a
downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until they drown" (Hurst 1). This is exactly what
happened when farmers still used their old techniques of farming. They would raise turkeys in a
free range with no roof over their heads, just surrounded by a fence. Weasels would come and
kill the turkeys by snapping their neck. In a downpour one night a farmer lost 4,000 turkeys to
drowning. "He lost his dream and he also lost his farm due to that" (Hurst 2). This is an example
of pathos because he is trying to arouse the emotions of people who are sympathetic of those
4,000 turkeys drowning. It isn’t a very convincing because he doesn’t say whether or not this
many turkeys are dying all over farms everywhere, he is just giving an example of one farmer’s
experience with free range farming. Nowadays farmers keep them in large open sheds. This
prevents the weasel attacks and the drowning. Hurst provides a perfect example to silence critics
because if farmers steady used their old methods of farming then millions of turkeys would be
dead and many farms would get shut down due to the high loss of turkeys to drowning. I think he
could have backed up the story about the turkeys by giving a statistic of how many turkeys die
annually in the entire country from drowning in free range farms, instead of just one farmer’s
story. He could have made this example stronger by providing statistics about old method turkey
farming against the new methods of turkey farming around the world. Hurst makes a good point
when he states that pigs won't be held in hog crates anymore and chickens won't be held in such
a tight space either. He tries to make people realize that even though the treatment of animals
will get better that more of the animals will die. Pigs, if not held in tightly packed crates will eat
each other and be crushed. Chickens are an easy target for any predator and some will die due to
flocks establishing their pecking order. But putting these animals in a free range will increase
food prices, use more energy and water to produce extra grain, and some people will go hungry
because they can't buy the same food which will rise to higher prices. Hurst provides the
audience with a choice that needs to be resolved. Higher price foods or the treatment of animals?
The author adds logos and pathos to this point of animal treatment vs. high prices of food. The
example of pathos would be about the farmer losing his farm and dreams because of the drowned
turkeys. Most people would probably feel sympathetic for him because he was trying to do right
for the animals and in the end he lost out. Those facts convinced me that even though the
handling of animals is important, the lives of farmers are more important. I think that this would
have had a greater impact if he stated how many other farmers lost their farms while they were
doing the old way of farming. The example of logos would be the story of the farmer who lost
the turkeys because it was a testimony of another person who experienced it. The personal
experience that Hurst has from being a farmer for 30 years is also an example of ethos.
Hurst explains how industrial farming has helped more than just the animals. He gives
plenty of examples such as "Biotech crops actually cut the use of chemicals, and increase food
safety" (Hurst 1). He also states that herbicides cut the need for "tillage", which decreases soil
erosion. From personal experience, logos, he knows that the combination of herbicides and
genetically modified seed has made his farm more sustainable and actually reduces the pollution
he sends down the river. Hurst tries to persuade people that even though farming isn't very
convectional, it is doing more good for the environment then it has in the past. He also explains
that industrial farming has helped consumers because of cheap food saying "Only ‘industrial
farming’ can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for
food as a result of growing incomes" (Hurst 1). Consumers benefit from cheap food and state the
fact about the headlines in one study. He gives an example based on logos, saying that when
food prices rose in 2007 and 08' about 50 million additional people are hungry because of the
increasing food prices according to the Food and Agriculture of the United Nations. This
evidence is very convincing to me. He gets straight to the point and you can tell he is trying to
convince farming critics that industrial farming has its minor setbacks but overall provides more
to the world.
Overall Hurst does a good job at convincing critics that industrial farming isn't as bad as
they make it seem. He uses a great ethos in the sense that he actually been a farmer for 30 years.
He uses testimony of his fellow farmers also. He brings in a pathos appeal saying that this is how
farmers make money and if they choose to do it the way critics want, then farmers wouldn't be
able to support their family or bring in steady income. He convinces me that industrial farming is
necessary by being an experienced farmer, using outside sources adequately, and giving the
alternative outcome to the situation. In all Hurst was very specific about his examples and did a
good job presenting his view and side on industrial farming.