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.

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?

Just when I finally got myself trained to remember to take my reusable “green” grocery bags to the store (at least most of the time), I read a report on “food safety threats” from them!  Apparently, reusing the bags can result in the accumulation of coliform bacteria and molds.

Before you trash all those bags, however, please keep in mind that the study was funded by the Environment and Plastic Industry Council (I read that as a vested interest in plastic bags).  And it appears that no E. coli or salmonella were found in the tests.

Still, common sense should come into play:

• Put potentially leaky items, such as meat, or dirt-bearing produce in a separate bag before placing in a reusable bag.
• Wash your bags after multiple uses, turn inside out and air dry, preferably in the sun to allow UV rays to help the sterilization process.
• Replace your bags if they become moldy, smelly or stained
• Wash all foods placed in direct contact with a reused bag

No reason not to keep using those bags.  In many industrialized countries, green bags are the norm, not the exception.

Back in 2007, we wrote about a paper claiming the use of growth promotants in beef production was more beneficial to the environment than grass-feeding.  Virtually the same story is in the most current issue of Beef Magazine.  I find it interesting that Beef doesn’t provide a link to the report, and the link I included to the report in my blog post no longer works.  Nor can I find the report anywhere on the CFGI website.  At least the original Iowa State Report is still available.  Note that this report has nothing to do with the environmental effects of either type of production.

I do not argue that increasing the efficiency of production can be beneficial for the environment and for the economy.  I take issue, however, with propaganda disguised as journalism.  I believe this article (like many on the other side of the debate) to be misleading and less about information than influence.

I have the same problem believing extreme positions on any subject;  be it claims that we will be poisoned if our food is produced using any technology invented in the 20th Century, or disregard of any and all concerns that some technologies have negative effects. 

In case you haven’t heard, the new Secretary of Agriculture has struck a blow for bringing production back to the people.  On the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birthday, Vilsak literally broke ground at the USDA’s headquarters, declaring a patch of pavement to be returned back to green. 

It is essential for the federal government to lead the way in enhancing and conserving our land and water resources,” said Vilsack. “President Obama has expressed his commitment to responsible stewardship of our land, water and other natural resources, and one way of restoring the land to its natural condition is what we are doing here today - “breaking pavement” for The People’s Garden.”

This is the first in what Vilsak plans to be a community garden at each USDA facility worldwide.  Hooray!  Nice to see the government leading by example, for a change.

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.

I don’t have the answer, but it’s an interesting debate.  I’m going to paraphrase heavily from Dot.Earth, because frankly, this is way out of my area of expertise. 

George Washington Carver was of the opinion (back when there were only 2 billion people on earth) that as we depleted the energy stores from ores and oil, we could fully replace them with energy produced on our farms.  But, now that we are pushing 7 billion people, it is unlikely that we can grow enough biofuel AND food to provide our needs without developing every inch of land possible. 

Ultimately, it is sunlight that provides our energy.  It seems logical that the more directly we harvest that sunlight, the more efficient we will be.  Looked at in that way, solar (and wind) power, followed by the stored solar energy in oil and other fossil fuels are arguably more efficient than using plants to convert sunlight to carbon. 

The debate continues:  Some argue that intensified agriculture can cut land use; concentrated agriculture leads to increases in production efficiencies.  Others argue that as more of our crops go to ethanol, more land is pushed into row-crop production that is best left to other uses. 

As a biologist (and therefor completely unqualified to offer an opinion), I believe that any system that has built-in redundancies in its abilities to meet its needs is inherently healthier and better able to adapt to changing circumstances than a system that has only one source.  In other words, as long as we don’t go overboard and become completely dependent on biofuels, having additional options for our energy is probably a good thing.

Happy Cow-loween:  Visit Cattle4Kids.com for some fun pictures, games and information about cattle, 4-H and related topics.  (picture courtesy of Beef Daily’s “Halloween Cowboy Style“)

Halloween Junk Food at Whole Foods: My friend, Dr. Rita-Marie, is fired up (read that po’d) that Whole Foods is pimping white flour, white sugar, food coloring-frosted cookies as Halloween Treats.  So much for “nutrients intact, as nature created” (the supposed Whole Foods motto).

Food Safety Gone Astray: A November ‘teach-in’ about how recent changes in agri-business practices implemented in the name of “food safety” have had harmful environmental effects.  In particular, changes in production after the e-coli-in-spinach outbreak may have negative effect on wildlife with dubious value to food safety.

Field Guide to Organic Labels:  An op-ed piece from Kansas puts organic labels and the decision to buy in perspective.

One of the issues that people often bring up to me as a beef producer is the “footrprint” of eating meat versus a strictly vegetarian diet.  I know that my cattle are raised on land that could not be (or should not be) used for any sort of cultivation, but I’ve been looking for some good research reports on the subject.   I got some leads from friends at the American Farmland Trust.

A study at Cornell University looked at a range of diets in terms of how much of New York’s population could be fed by food produced within the state.  Although a strictly vegetarian diet uses the least total land mass, a diet that includes some meat and dairy is more efficient in terms of total land use and sustainability.  The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay.

The Delta Farm Press cites the same study, but also points out that biotechnology can further reduce the footprint through less chemicals (i.e. bt Cotton) or getting more production from fewer animals (i.e. rBST).

According to a study released by the Environmental Working Group, bottled water is no better than filtered tap water, despite being considerably more expensive (not to mention the carbon footprint of bottles and transportation, or the reports of phlalates from the bottles!).

• Many bottled waters use municipal water sources that have been filtered or otherwise purified.  As much as I complain about Cameron, TX tap water, I’m not sure I’d rather be drinking water from Las Vegas or Houston.
• Bottled water manufacturers are not required to disclose test results for contaminants, unlike municipal water.  The report showed that faith in bottled water purity is not always well-founded
• The same chemical profile is found in many bottled waters as in tap water.  Those images of mountain springs don’t have much to do with the source or the purity.

I geeked the study, and it passed the transparency test of having the actual data available.  Although somewhat alarmist in its executive summary, the basic truths have not been twisted.

The bottom line:  You are better off financially and environmentally buying a good water purification system for your own tap water.