I’ve seen a number of articles, blogs, etc. lately in the animal ag press encouraging producers to stand up verbally to attacks on the industry by animal rights groups.  At the extreme, some of these groups are calling for conversion to veganism.   The vast majority of Americans are not going to become vegans or vegetarians.  When the animal ag industry focuses on fighting the extremes, it tends to allow us to avoid the more pertinent and difficult issues relating to the way large-scale animal agriculture has evolved.

In the name of “efficiency”, many sectors of the industry have gone down a slippery slope of incremental changes in animal husbandry.  Like the frog heated slowly to boiling that will die rather than jump out of the pot, our industry has slowly adopted practices that my agricultural ancestors would be horrified with. 

In many cases, a practice is put into place that incrementally improves “animal welfare” over the existing condition, given the current production situation.  An example is de-beaking chickens:  Through a combination of changes in genetics (commercial chicken strains are more agressive than their flock-living ancestors) and living conditions (higher densities of chickens per square foot), chickens will peck at each other.  It is better to remove the chicks beak than to let them peck each other to death.  And so welfare studies will report that chickens are better off with de-beaking than intact.

If the industry’s current mass-production practices are so defensible, why is it that they are not routinely pictured in educational or promotional material from the very industries that use them?  The egg industry uses images of hens on nests.  The chicken industry pictures chickens that still have their beaks, the milk industry uses images of cows out on pasture. 

Temple Grandin makes a statement in her most recent book (Animals Make Us Human) about why she is still in animal ag.  She also states that if her career had started now, as opposed to when it did, she is not sure she could have seen past the current welfare situation present in many large-scale chicken, hog and feedlot operations.

We, as an industry, have lost the middle ground between animal stewardship and ag-business.  Individual producers are, as a whole, conscientious caretakers of the animals in their charge.  Somehow, in the translation to larger and more efficient production, however, we’ve lost our connection to the subjects of our stewardship, and often to the employees who are involved in that production.  IMHO, this is what our industry needs to address more urgently than preventing a mass conversion to veganism.

 N.B. This post was prompted by “The sin of animal agriculture“, a blog post to which I felt compelled to reply.   

How can we feed our world healthily, responsibly, ethically and economically?  That question could start many a heated debate.  It’s going to take some creative problem solving and a willingness to take a hard and realistic look at alternatives and the real (including environmental and social) costs of many production systems to create tomorrow’s agriculture.  Russ Parsons of the LA Times voiced many of my thoughts.  I’m going to quote liberally.

On the one side, the hard-line aggies seem convinced that a bunch of know-nothing urbanites want to send them back to Stone Age farming techniques. On the other side, there’s a tendency by agricultural reformers to lump together all farms (or at least those that aren’t purely organic, hemp-clad mom-and-pop operations) as thoughtless ravagers of the environment

I operate on both sides of this debate because we raise and sell registered breeding stock and sell pasture-raised beef and veal at local farmer’s markets.  I hear more than my share of biases and accusations. Here’s some things I think we all need to remember:

Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening. …Not only do farmers have expenses to meet just like any other business, but they also need to be rewarded when they do good work.

…we also have to keep in mind that our first obligation is to make sure that healthful, fresh food remains plentiful and inexpensive enough that anyone can afford it.

The world is changing, and those who can adapt are the ones who will be successful.

What’s political is also personal. If you believe in something, you should be willing to make sacrifices to support it, even if it’s expensive or inconvenient. Wailing about farmers who use pesticides and then balking at paying extra for organic produce is hypocritical because the yields in organic farming are almost always lower.

Don’t assume that those who disagree with you are evil, stupid or greedy.

It is good to hear a voice for tolerance and moderation.  Consumers have legitimate desires and concerns, even when they don’t have all the facts.  Individual producers, as a whole, are producing our food in the best way they know and really do care about their animals and the environment.  Let’s fix the problem, not the blame.

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.