Why does it come as a surprise to the beef industry that consumers are losing faith in products from the big packers?

Through a trade e-newsletter, I came across Tyson’s new Open Prairie Natural Angus branded beef, whose promise “is to produce wholesome beef the natural way”. 

We are obsessed with providing food that is as good as nature intended. We are devoted to our relationships with a passionate generation of farmers and ranchers who raise animals without added hormones or antibiotics while fulfilling an uncompromising commitment to quality and a healthy environment.

We are grateful for the land, and we’re here to pass along the best things it has to offer. We are committed to responsible management of our resources and are hopeful that our practices, from sustainable farming to smart packaging methods, will make a positive difference for years to come.

All this is obviously intended to give the impression of free-roaming cattle, sustainably produced by family farmers.  From the product specifications, however, the only real requirements that make this beef any different than generic are that is is nominally angus (i.e. black-hided) and that it received no antibiotics and apparently no hormone injections.  As far as I can see (and I have e-mailed Tyson for clarification, in case I am mistaken), there are no “sustainable farming” practices required.  In addition, while the cattle may be born and grown for part of their lives on farms and ranches (as are virtually all beef cattle), these cattle are finished in feedlots, just the same as most mainstream beef is.

Given the current structure of costs, subsidies and infrastructure, feedlot production is the cheapest way to produce beef.  My point is not that Tyson shouldn’t be selling feedlot-finished beef, natural or otherwise.  I resent the purposely misleading brand name and promotional material that implies that their feedlot beef is a viable (and lower price) alternative to truly pasture-raised beef produced by ranchers such as ourselves, for whom “respect for all life” and “sustainability” are more than just marketing gambits.

Encouraging news (via the American Farmland Trust):  The USDA-ARS (Ag Research Service) is actively researching and supporting on the feasibility and actuality of eating local on the East Coast.

The idea is to ultimately build a map that shows where, along the nation’s East Coast, people would have the opportunity to buy locally produced food — and where they wouldn’t. After all, between 2002 and 2007, some 911,000 acres of farmland along the Eastern Seaboard was taken out of agricultural production to make way for housing, shops and other development.

The reasons for supporting local are many.  (and I’m probably preaching to the choir here); fresher food, supporting local communities and rural ag development,  less dependence on foreign food supplies, less volatility due to fluctuating fuel (transportation) costs.  Not to mention the more intangible support of quality of life through keeping agriculture more local.  I even heard a historical theory recently that the demise of most great civilizations was precipitated by massive urbanization and loss of the ability to be self sufficient in producing food.

One more encouraging sign out of Obama’s ag administration.

This is a post that’s been begging to be written ever since the NY Times article came out.  In fact, I could write several posts, but I’ll restrain myself.

Ground beef is the protein backbone of the American diet.  For such a food staple, people are surprisingly ignorant about how it is processed.  Even Chowhound admitted surprise that the hamburger patties in the article were formed from a number of sources, including fat trim and scraps.  The ground beef you typically buy (unless you typically buy locally from a known source) is blended from multiple slaughter facilities, and is primarily the fat and scrap trim and/or cull cows (primarily dairy) and bulls.  The time between when the trim is cut and the beef is ground is typically several days.  Carcasses in most plants are not tested for contaminants (such as E coli), only the beef after its ground.

As a youngster eating homegrown beef, I remember tasting the meatloaf mix before it went into the oven.  It would be insane to do so with typical commercially available ground beef.  Even then, I was taking some risks, but probably less than eating at a typical buffet line.

This year our ranch will sell between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds of packaged beef, about 40% of that in the form of ground beef, hamburger patties or chili beef.  Each package is from a single animal, with a known health history and slaughter date (not to mention pedigree and name), ground and frozen on the day the carcass is cut.  We sell beef from pedigreed Angus stock, completely raised on pasture, no hormone implants or routine antibiotics, on a ranch dedicated to humane animal treatment and environmental stewardship.  Our retail price for a single pound is $5.00; for 10-packs it’s $38.00.  We charge significantly less to wholesale outlets, restaurants and institutions.

Yet, we still struggle to find outlets for our beef.  The grocery chains typically are not anxious to deal with a local supplier for a single food item.  They also want to sell fresh product, delivered weekly, rather than the frozen beef we sell, which is harvested every 2-3 weeks.  Restaurants are struggling with their margins, and even at prices near-zero-profit margins for us, we still are more expensive than mass-market ground beef.  We can’t compete with 60 cents/lb trimmings and $1.20/lb “recovered lean” from melted fat trim (main components of the Cargill burger in the article).

Which points out one of the conundrums of our food system.  Mass production, utilizing discarded resources (cull animals and trim), centralized processing and distribution all lower food prices.  Add on the convenience factor of dealing in large volumes, and beef like ours hardly stands a chance.  Given information and a choice, at equal prices, and equal availability., I like to think a majority of consumers would choose a product similar to our Wild Type Ranch beef.  I’m thankful to all my customers who are willing to go the extra mile (sometimes literally) to do so.

From my very first post, I’ve maintained that local/alternative/progressive or whatever label you want to use is not an either/or choice for American Agriculture. Deputy Secretary of Ag, Kathleen Merrigan, said it very eloquently and completely yesterday as she discussed the KYF2 (Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food) program more in-depth.

Our food production and distribution system has some serious flaws, but it also has some parts that work pretty well.  Not everyone can afford $4-$5/lb chicken.  I sometimes wax evangelical on food-system reform, but I still believe it’s got to work into the system, not wholesale replace it.  We (farmers) can’t see each other as enemies, just because we use different practices.  All farmers ARE rock stars.  Thanks deputy secretary Merrigan

Other posts on the subject:

Living between Sesame Street and the Meatrix

Local Meat, friend or foe to animal agriculture?

What should we eat, and how should it be produced?

A new USDA initiative was recently launched (thanks, SlashFood) designed to reconnect consumers with their food and to stimulate local food economies. The $65 million dollar “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program aims to break down some of the barriers that keep local food systems from thriving.

It’s great to see the USDA getting involved in embracing local food, rather than seeing it as a threat.   Wild Type Ranch produces pastured beef to sell locally, but half of our business is raising top-quality breeding stock, most of which is used as parents of more conventionally-produced beef.   I often feel that I’m one of the few who don’t see the two businesses as antagonistic.

I hear both sides of this issue, at the farmer’s market, at cattle sales and around town.  Getting consumers in touch with producers has got to help with understanding some of the conventional production systems that sometimes unfairly come under criticism.  Having the USDA embrace local food economies has got to help conventional agriculture see that anything that promotes ag, helps keep farmers on the land and farming and educates consumers is good for all agriculture.

Kudos, USDA!

Like many of my colleagues, I’ve been swamped by forwarded e-mails about the pending “Food Safety” legislation, HR 875.  Most, if not all, of the e-mails tell me that this will be the end of my direct-to-consumer marketing, farmer’s markets, organic gardening and so on; such as “… if NAIS and 875 both pass, we will all be forced to eat ONLY imported foods or that processed by big corporations”

I admit I’ve not had the time to investigate the matter thoroughly.  And being a skeptic, I tend to think that the more often and more emphatic these type of forwarded e-mails are, the more likely they are to contain inaccuracies.

I was delighted to see a very thorough post on the subject on Ethicurean.  The bill is actually quite reasonable, does not interfere with within-state commerce and certainly do not make it illegal to be an organic farmer.   Before you hit the forward button, or write to your congressman, please read this very thoughtful post (and some very good comments).

Food for Thought: Excerpted from Feedstuffs

ANOTHER 40 million people have been pushed into hunger this year, primarily due to higher food prices, according to the U.N.’s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO).  The group’s just-released estimate brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, which compares to 923 million in 2007.

In the next 40 years, it is estimated that the amount of food that will need to be produced to feed the world’s growing population will be greater than the amount already produced throughout the history of humankind. That is a huge challenge for farmers and ranchers around the world, and as Erpelding [of Elanco] explained, it is only achievable through continued access to technology, improvements in genetics, proper animal care and efficiency in production.

Sustainability, availability and affordability are equally important in feeding the world.  

I often get involved in discussions where technology is painted with a broad black brush.  Technologies, such as hybrid crops, effective veterinary treatments and even GMOs are primarily responsible for the the availability of affordable food.  Technology can support sustainability, like some crops that can grow in salt-poisoned soils or with less nitrogen.

It is important not to reject technology just because it is technology.  It is also important to look at the entire impact and cost of technologies, not just the bottom cash line.  Policies and production decisions should be made based on facts (all of them) and not emotions.

Among a basketball coach, pro-golfer and military doctors, ABC World News has named a vegetable farmer as one of their “extraordinary people who make a difference“.

Bob Blair, whose original story aired in June, runs Volunteer Farm in Woodstock, Virginia.  The farm, with volunteer labor, produces fresh vegetables for those in need.  Since June, they have produced and distributed 35 tons of vegetables with the help of 3,100 volunteers.

Blair started the farm 5 years ago, originally intending it to be a Christmas tree farm.  But, Blair had an epiphany to grow nutritious food for those who need it.  Now, with the help of his volunteers, he provides good, healthy and nutritious food to a local food bank.

In an era of increasing obesity AND food insecurity, I applaud Bob and the army of volunteers that support him.  It’s a humbling reminder that any of us can make a real difference, to at least a few people.  Bob, you’ve inspired me to see what we can with production from our own Wild Type Ranch this winter, to help feed those in need.

At the risk of getting a reputation as an non-consumer (does that make me anti-American?), I want to draw your attention to The Story of Stuff.  My friends at Greener Visions Farms sent me the link.  They are including CDs with it in their Christmas cards this year.

I’m not sure I buy everything being said in the video, but in the week since it captured my attention for a full 20 minutes, I find myself thinking a LOT about how much we buy, use (or don’t use) and throw away.  Is our society and economy really dependent on continually increasing our consumption?

On another level, I wonder how much our throw-away culture is reflected in our relationships and family structure.  At this time of year, it’s worth reflecting on those things that are worth keeping, cherishing and renewing, even if they aren’t quite as shiny as something new.

There are a lot of actions undertaken by PETA of which most people are unaware.  One of them is buying stock in publicly traded meat companies, such as Tyson. 

According to a story on Meatingplace, PETA owns stock in several companies as part of a campaign to influence these companies through stockholder’s meetings.  As stock prices plunge, PETA has been forced to buy more stock in these companies to maintain the minimum level of at $2000 worth to participate in the meetings.

I’m all for stockholders having a say and holding public companies accountable for their actions.  I’m adamant about humane treatment for all God’s creatures (our ranch’s founding principle is “respect for all life”).  I’m not a fan of PETA.  PETA doesn’t want animals treated humanely, they want to abolish all use of animals and their environment for human sustenance, comfort or entertainment.  I put no trust in an organization that will use any ends to their means, including causing harm to animals and people.

PETA’s participation in these companies will not be primarily for reform, but publicity.