LETTERS: UNIVERSITY FARM DECISION QUESTIONED

To the Editor:

Your March 22 page 12A article on the University's farm transferring from primarily dairy to an all-beef enterprise leaves me with many questions. I'll ask only a few.

If risk was a major factor, as stated, and if the state is number two in beef AND HAY (emphasis mine), why was hay production not chosen? That seems a safe risk. It incorporates the university's soil science, agronomy, plant science, and field crops on which animal science relates.

Was any farm industry rather than animal exploitation considered?

What there any attention given to sustainable agriculture and the current growth it's receiving?

Danny Terry says that it came down to whether the university wanted to make this a profitable or strictly a learning situation. Well? Which is it?

When I was an independent study student working on the farm, and later a contract workers, I checked the beef herd once a day (as mentioned in the article as satisfactory herd management). What did I learn by leaning out of the truck window? You can be lazy and mediocre and still call yourself a farmer.

Most of my time was spent in the dairy parlor. The combined textbook knowledge with the practical experience enriched my learning. I saw first-hand where classroom solutions and conjecture failed or flourished. It was labor-intensive, but so much more rewarding and educational.

It's too bad financial times are such that this decision has to be made; one which requires no innovation, no critical thinking, no entrepreneurial spirit for students to emulate.

It also raises unasked questions about the career choice of many of the area's successful dairy producers who have their own "up-to-date experiences" to deal with.

Brenda Douglas

Cape Girardeau