Our home ranch is featured in this month’s Edible Austin magazine.  If you like the photos, they are a credit to my husband and partner, Ralph Mitchell.  He’s also the one responsible for doing the steak grilling for the taste-testing we do of each harvest of beef, not to mention the bulk of the ranch work.

This article presents an idyllic view of our life.  In reality, it is hard work almost every day.  It is also the most rewarding thing I’ve ever done in my life.

While I was in Washington D.C. last week, a cab driver from Mauritius, upon hearing that I ranched for a living, asked how many hours a week we worked and what we did for a vacation.  He seemed surprised when I explained we pretty much worked  while the sun was up and that time off the ranch was only by necessity.

I found myself explaining that although we work really hard almost every day, our “vacations” come in small moments that don’t happen during most people’s work life.   Often, in the midst of a stressful event, I’ll be caught by the beauty of a nighthawk chasing insects in the morning sun, or the smell of clover in bloom.  As it mentions in the article, we sometimes turn a routine chore like checking on the cows into a mini romantic interlude.  Honestly, if I had a week with no responsibilities or duties, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere but here on our home ranch.

I wonder how much different the world would be if most people were able to find the same kind of reward in their daily labor.

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.

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.