An article in the New York Times last week raked the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center for animal abuse. The center, located near Clay Center, Nebraska, is the USDA’s premier research facility and is charged with finding ways to make meat production in this country more profitable.

Yes, there were parts I found disturbing. But then, most of those were scenes taken out of context. It’s easy to create drama around isolated images.

In my work I frequently use scientists from the U.S. MARC as sources, and have never had any reason to doubt the accuracy or ethics of their work. They are knowledgeable, friendly, and always more than willing to share the methods and outcomes of their research with the public.

Furthermore, I have personally met and spoke with center director Dr. John Pollack, am familiar with his professional reputation, and can say I am disturbed many of the incidents described occurred 20-30 years ago with no mention that Pollack has been at the facility for approximately five years.

I, like most who are connected to the livestock industry, am keenly aware of efforts by the Humane Society of the United States, PETA, and other so-called “animal welfare” groups to misrepresent the truth of modern livestock production for the benefit of their own agendas.

Why is it assumed only those with no knowledge of the industry can be objective about it? Believe me, these groups are not objective.

I am also the last person to hang the reporter. A couple of television news outlets aside (we all know who), they generally don’t just make stuff up. I, too, am a journalist, and I will defend my chosen profession, just as livestock producers will.

That said, there are reasons to question the credibility of this piece.

There are a couple of specific elements I would like to address, because even someone with my limited knowledge can safely say we are not getting the whole picture here:

— There seems to be confusion over the use of swine farrowing crates. The article criticizes the center for allowing sows to roll over and crush piglets. A mere few paragraphs down the page, it criticizes the use of crates. Apparently the reporter does not realize the sows are in the crates so they won’t roll over and crush the piglets.

— There is mention of the center being surrounded by a security fence with no one from the outside allowed in. That fence is not there to protect the center from outside scrutiny (at least not before this articles was printed). It is there to keep outsiders from bringing disease, or pathogens, in and infecting the animals. The first time I toured a hog confinement facility I had to “shower in and shower out.” Logs are kept as to who goes in and out and where they were last. If you have been to a foreign country recently, you’re not getting near the hogs. That type of zealous protocol is even more crucial in a research facility where animals’ exposure to disease can be not only deadly, but costly to years of research.

— I frequently these days speak with western range sheep producers. There is not one that will not make a point of telling you up front that the primary obstacle they face is predators. Fact: Coyotes kill lambs. That’s why they keep data on lambs born and lambs weaned. They’re not the same number. U.S. MARC did not create this problem. It is working to reduce it. Fact: Sheep in the western states are raised on the open range. So are cattle. When you graze thousands of animals over thousands of acres, few births take place in a barn. (And just to cut the naysayers off at the pass – those are not farmable acres. The land is good for little else than meager grazing.)

Research is not always pretty. Sometimes the result is evidence of what should not be done. But good scientists use that information to make the next experiment more focused on the desired outcomes. The information relayed in this piece calls for greater scrutiny of the facility and the USDA has already implemented new training and complaint investigation procedures. If there is need for improvement, it will no doubt be made. The credibility of the science, not just the reputation of the industry, relies on it.

There is much valuable research being conducted at U.S. MARC. Genetic research that helps identify animals with superior growth and meat carcass qualities, as well as efficient use of feedstuffs, to help continue to reduce livestock production’s carbon footprint (beef’s alone is down 18 percent since the late 1970s, egg production’s impact has decreased nearly 80 percent). All while simultaneously addressing the protein needs of a world population growing at an alarming pace.

As I read the comments posted on the Times article, over and over again people cited issues such as this are why they only buy meat from the farmer down the road who they know and trust. I’m all for buying local and eliminating the need to ship food from one end of the nation to the other. (This is where the trucking industry gets to get defensive.) But do they honestly think that local producer isn’t benefiting from the research conducted at U.S. MARC and our land grant universities?

We have an abundant, safe food supply because of the industry’s efforts toward profitable and humane animal husbandry, and the research that gives producers the tools they need. DNA testing for genes identified by U.S. MARC research allows breeding animals to be selected for the desired traits, with smart producers knowing how to balance all the elements involved.

As one farmer put it in his comments: “The best animal welfare is breeding a healthy animal.”

There are two sides to every story. Articles like this raise questions. That’s not entirely a bad thing.

But one doesn’t have to assume it provides answers.