Practically every book on sheep-keeping contains a chapter or two on “marketing.”  But in the books I’ve read, I’ve rarely seen anything on marketing, only selling tips.

Marketing means “find a need, then fill it.”  Promotion means “try to get folks to buy what you already produced.”

There seems to be little interest in real marketing in the sheep biz.  Widespread belief that it’s just promo may be a reason why U.S. sheep numbers have steadily declined for nearly 60 years.  The decades have seen many officials come and go who claimed they were marketing sheep products yet they didn’t know or just disregarded the difference between that and promotion.  Again and again, the only thing proved was that promotion without marketing didn’t grow the nation’s sheep industry.

Promotion can get “trendsetter” types to buy once; marketing builds the health of overall demand.  Promotion only initiates illusory, temporary “test-buying.”  But consumers repeatedly buying flock products are what keep sheep growers in business.  Flock-product promotion is important, but marketing has to come first.  When we promote without marketing, buyers cannot sense any concern for their needs in our approach, which is why we miss the mark.  When we aim at nothing, we always hit it.

We as growers have for many decades been paying for what we thought were marketing services through dues, head taxes, check-offs, fundraisers, etc.  That makes us the “customers” of these services—we are the ones with the money.  Yet despite all the millions of dollars spent, Americans now consume far fewer U.S. flock products—both overall and per capita—than they did 50 years ago.  And this, despite growth in population and buying power.  Many of us sheep-grower “customers” are wrongly convinced that every penny of the money spent so far has made life better for us.  This drives home an incontestable point:  Customers aren’t always right, even when the customers are us.

“Animal Procedures Are Cruel”

Mankind has come a long way over many millennia in the arena of humaneness, most recently in the work of the famous Dr. Temple Grandin.  Her discoveries and research have helped slaughter facilities everywhere reduce animal discomfort in the slaughter process.  Even kosher and halal slaughter (which use no stunning) now take place without significant animal suffering.  See more at Dr. Grandin’s web page, which covers animal transport, handling, slaughter and facilities design.

      Now imagine if no one ate meat, how many and how big fences would have to be built to keep wandering, overpopulating, starving farm animals out of gardens and fields!  “Mercy killing” would be inevitable.  Vegans very often will kill animals they think are suffering, but for reasons known only to themselves will not use the meat.  It goes to waste or is fed to animals like cats and dogs, which have no self-inhibitions to kill.

      A veterinarian castrates an animal for pay; a pet-lover does it to prevent overpopulation; a farmer does it to increase meat quality; a sicko does it to get his “jollies.”  But you know, the animal may feel the same no matter the motive.  So is it one’s motive that makes it cruel or humane?  Is mercy killing always merciful?

      It can be argued that cruelty to animals sometimes averts greater evils.  King Solomon noted 3000 years ago, “The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10)  Cruel behavior, though not approved, was a valuable way to see of whom to beware.  Cruelty can be accidental, negligent or intentional.  When staged for publicity purposes, it’s the latter.  When its remedy is delayed in order to get camera footage, it’s the second and third—really hard to excuse.  Yet they’re the bread and butter of the professional animal sympathist industry.  Even so, let’s be wary of the assumptio non probata, lest we lose our moral high ground to money-grubbing activists whose tender mercies are cruel, and thus lose the opportunity to please the real customers, who just want to look out for “the life of their beast.”

“Livestock Wastes Fresh Water & Corn That Could Feed Poor?”

This has been the cry of Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals, Animal Protection Institute, HSUS, PETA and others for years.  They imply world hunger would be ended if no animals were raised.

      But only a small percentage of grain is of #1 Grade—fit for human use.  Most corn for example has fungal damage, insect damage and animal or bird defilement.  We still see this in most corn cribs.  Low-grade corn can be fed to animals; some can be made into fuel or other products.  One thing is certain:  Not enough is fit for human consumption to stop world hunger.  In “hungry” places around the world, livestock is the only buffer against off seasons.  Crops are grown until unfavorable weather, and then the animals are butchered as needed until crops start growing again.

Corn weavils damage a large percent of each year's crop: Who'd want to eat it? (Livestock would!)

A similar argument is “It takes a football field of water 6 feet deep to raise just one steer.”  That’s just about an acre, and just about 5 sheep.  Two years of rain, say 36 inches, will make enough grass to raise those livestock in most rich grass regions.  The water falls on that acre whether the animals are there or not, so it’s a bit misleading to imply they are wasting water.  In fact, most grassland isn’t fit for growing other crops—too steep, too rocky, soil too shallow, etc.—but it can grow grass.  People can’t live on grass, but we can eat the sheep that graze it.  So in fact, sheep make it possible for poor nations to grow more food, not less.

      Moral:  Always look for the activist’s unproven assumption and then follow the money.