The Animal Ag Alliance just released an alarming report showing that extreme animal rights groups dramatically increased their attacks on the food chain in 2008.  Attacks on food retailers, such as Hardee’s, McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC increased by triple digits.

Extremist groups claimed responsibility for “liberating” thousands of animals during the year and causing millions of dollars worth of damage.

It’s important to understand that groups such as Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front and even PETA and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) are ultimately about promoting the total elimination of the use or keeping of animals in any way, even as pets.  Masquerading behind “animal rights” they often use intimidation and destruction to advance their agenda.

Don’t get me wrong: I am a big advocate of humane animal handling;  “Respect for all life is the founding principle of our own Wild Type Ranch.  I support my local humane society and animal shelter.  (the local humane society is not at all the same entity as HSUS).  I take issue with groups that act in an inhumane manner, using terrorist techniques, under the guise of promoting “welfare”.

We’ve had chickens at our ranch going on three years now.  I think I’m only beginning to appreciate their value to us. We got them initially to help control the grasshoppers and flies around our ranch cabin.  We thought we’d get a few “yard eggs” and maybe have some extra to sell.  Now, we’re planning to expand our flock by 100 hens, and have chickens follow our herd as we rotate them through the fields.  The main economic benefit is still likely to be from the pest control, but egg demand is sky-rocketing, too.

At the moment, I only live at the ranch on weekends and school holidays, so I’m stuck in a suburban neighborhood during the week.  I miss my chickens when I’m in town. Every time I throw food into the garbage or even put it into the compost barrel, I think about them.  Our chickens eat virtually everything we don’t.  Between the dog and the chickens, not much goes to waste at the ranch.

The chickens have become my boys’ main chore out at the ranch.  They take pride in gathering the eggs each day, feeding them and helping keep the nest boxes freshly stocked with hay.  Our latest batch of hens are Ameraucaunas, which tend to like to lay their eggs in places other than their nest boxes. So every day is like an Easter Egg hunt,  especially since this breed lays green-blue eggs of varying hues.

And the taste of the eggs is out of this world!  The deep golden yolks have a better nutritional profile as well.

The hens have also become an integral part of our gardening.  Besides keeping insects down, we have learned that if we turn the soil a few weeks before we plant, the chickens will do a great job nipping all the little weeds that sprout and our garden is much more weed-free.  They love the grubs we turn over too.  I’ve got one black hen that comes running every time I head to the garden, in the hope she’ll get grubs or discarded greens.  The flip side is that we’ve established a running battle with the flock to keep then out of the garden once it’s planted, but I’ve gotten pretty handy with a roll of chicken wire and some pliers.

NPR’s Morning Edition this morning reported the economy has more people looking to raising a few backyard chickens and more cities passing ordinances allowing small urban flocks.

If you’re interested in getting started, you can find plenty of help on the internet: Backyard Chickens.com is a great place to start.  Mother Earth News printed a good series a few years ago, too.

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.

The more I blog, the more I find myself philosophically aligned with concepts such as local, unprocessed, eco-friendly and small producer/small business.

At the same time, when I spend significant time researching the science behind the sticky issues we address, I often come down defending “big ag”, “corporate” and “government” based on my findings.

Sometimes, the same person that decries the lack of scientific data behind cloning, irradiation and other FDA rulings will take herbal supplements with many ingredients which have not been studied in a scientific manner.  I know producers who grow GMO crops, yet only buy non-rBST milk and talk of the “hormones and antibiotics” in our milk supply.

I know people who want more labels on our food to identify how it is produced, yet they are opposed to the USDA imposing mandatory animal identification, which would be required to implement such labels for meat, milk and poultry products.

I’ve seen cases where both sides of an issue cite the same study to support their own viewpoint.  When that happens, how do you know what to believe?

Here’s how I balance my brain and my gut when I’m evaluating media on an issue:

• Is there fear involved?
• Are both viewpoints represented?
• Is the author or group’s passion so great that everything seems black and white?
• What is the level of defensiveness and aggression in the piece?

The fact of the matter is, science is expensive.  Non-corporate sponsorship (government and private) is a small component of total research dollars, so much research has at least somne corporate money behind it.  When one delves deeply into peer-reviewed research, the data can usually be trusted.  Sometimes, even when the science is sound, the conclusions drawn are biased.  Unfortunately, research into alternative, non-mainstream and low-tech production practices tends not to get funded, so the research projects are often small, poorly designed or not adequately controlled to draw good conclusions.

The bottom line is that most issues are NOT clear-cut, and we all have to make the best, most informed decisions we can.

I just received an e-mail from a well-meaning acquaintance urging me to boycott McDonalds because they are importing South American beef.  The e-mail encourages boycotting McDonalds in order to help American ranchers.  It supposedly originated from the Texas Cattle Feeders and is signed by a Texas A&M University Animal Science professor.  I saw a version of this a couple years ago, too.

As much as I, as a Texas Cattle Raiser, want everyone to eat American Beef, I have to step in and say this is one of those e-mail perpetuated urban myths.  When it doubt, Snope it out. In addition, I know the professor whose name appears on the e-mail from my days as a TAMU professor, and checked this out with him a year or so ago.  He never put his name to this and has nothing to do with it.

Where’s the truth/ (or is it the beef)?  McD’s does import beef to supplement their mainly American beef supply, but from Australia and New Zealand where regulations are actually MORE stringent  and the beef is primarily grass-fed.  McD does so because they say they can’t get enough American beef that meets their standards for lean beef.  Believe it or not, McD’s has about the highest quality standards of any fast-food chain in the country for things like foreign material, leanness and source. (not sure that saying much, though).

As far as every rancher in the US having to signing papers at the auction barn.  There is a feed ban in most countries prohibiting feeding cow parts back to cows.  I can assure you that the average Joe rancher doesn’t sign any papers certifying anything about feed when his cattle go to an auction barn.

I can’t believe I’m defending McD’s, but couldn’t let the myth pervade.  So boycott away, if you want, but you’re not helping Texas cattle ranchers by doing so.

This has nothing to do with food, except that McDonalds is promoting one of the nominated toys:

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood has nominated 5 toys for its TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young children) award for the worst toy of the year.

From thousands of toys that promote violence and/or precocious sexuality to children and push branded entertainment at the expense of children’s play, CCFC has selected five exceptional finalists

You can vote until Feb 8, with the winner being announced Feb 12.  Which would you choose?

• A doll that does everything; save your kids the effort of using their imagination
• A video game from a trusted name in children’s toys.  Even though it is rated 10+, McDonalds is including it in their Happy Meals to simultaneously promote the video game, junk food, and the violent Dark Knight movie series to preschoolers.  What’s next, Lego Deep Throat?
• A toy car that rides roughshod over family budgets and the environment.  Added bonus-no physical exercise required!
• An exercise bike/video game system for preschoolers that makes trips to the park superfluous. Don’t worry, the content is educational, so Mom and Dad won’t have to worry about brain-rotting screen time…or interacting with their preschoolers at all
• A doll that combines two classic gender stereotypes, so girls can learn their place at an early age!

It was a hard choice, but my vote went to the exercise bike.  In a good home environment, limited exposure to violence or stereotypes can be overcome, but simulating being outdoors instead of the real thing seems way over the top.  Guess I’m thoroughly a rancher-mom!

Allergic reaction to the products of introduced gene products (the ‘foreign’ genes)  is one of the primary concerns about GMO’s.  It is a concern that is legitimate, but, like “unknown consequences” needs to be put into perspective of the non-GMO food we eat every day.

Fanatic Cook (among many others) has been writing about it.  Bix links to a very helpful monograph on the subject of allergenicity in GMO foods. Predicting allergic potential is difficult and an inaccurate process, at best.  All genes used in GMOs at least go through screening for potential allergenicity.  Compare this to the vast majority of other foods that are effectively only screened on people through trial and error through a long history of eating.

The main reason the use of GMO grains is not required to be listed on labels is that the grains are not any more likely to cause allergies (or any other adverse affect) than their  non-GMO counterparts.  Voluntary labelling such as “no-GMO” is allowed, which is something I applaud and support in the interest of freedom of choice and information.

I’ve been asked if eating meat from animals fed GMO grain means that we are eating the GMO proteins themselves?  Only to the extent that the particular modified protein passes through the digestive system wall.  In a healthy animal, most proteins are broken down before they are passed into the blood.  If this were a concern, we should be far more concerned that my pasture-raised cattle graze ragweed and other highly allergenic plants.

I am a small beef producer.  Last year, Wild Type Ranch sold about 11,000 pounds of beef at Farmer’s Markets and through local delivery.  Not only do I know the life history of each animal we harvested, I also tasted the beef from each one.  Often, I know the entire pedigree.  All this information helps us design our breeding program and select genetics that make our pasture-raised beef more tender and tasty than anything Donald Trump puts his over-priced name on.

I also know the names of the animals we harvest.

It freaks people out; “how can you eat something with a name?” they’ll ask in horror.  “Don’t tell me it’s name, just sell it to me!” is another common comment.

We name ALL the cattle born on our ranch, not just those we believe will go on to reproductive glory as cows or bulls.  Not to do so would be hypocritical.  The founding principle of our ranch is “respect for all life”.  The cattle destined for beef are no less worthy (in the most universal sense) than those destined for breeding.  Their “best use” is just different.

Our registered cattle mostly have names related to music (such as Pink Floyd, Sinatra, Layla).  I give the kids free rein on the unregistered calves.  Last year, we had all the planets-starting with Jupiter who was the biggest, Mars was red, etc.  I had to draw the line at Uranus, though.  Even I don’t want to eat beef from Uranus.

*****

For additional discussion, visit Rebecca, over at Honest Meat who is bravely delving into our disconnect from our meat and how it affects our food choices.

Since last month’s post on the role of technology in feeding the world, I’ve been thinking a lot about the fundamental issue of GMO’s.

A primary GMO-related fear is the unknown consequences of the genetic manipulation.  I won’t discount this concern, but I would like to put it into perspective.

Every bit of variation in all the food crops (plant or animal) we consume arises by genetic mutation.  As humans domesticated plants and animals, we selected mutants (sounds a lot scarier than ‘variants’, doesn’t it?) that suited our needs better.  These mutations had some visible difference (color, faster growth, better taste), but beyond what we could see, we had NO idea what other changes were caused by the mutation.

Since early in this century, plant breeders have produced new varieties of all sorts of plants by something called “mutation breeding“.  Seeds are subjected to some form of mutagenizing agent, such as a chemical, UV light or x-rays.  Thousands are planted to screen for and select desirable mutations.  This is a primary way in which disease-resistant varieties of vegetables, fruits and other crops are developed.  The FAO maintains a database with thousands of catalogued varieties.

Even heirloom varieties are mutants.  Are you familiar with those cool zebra-striped heirloom tomatoes?  Those stripes are caused by a “jumping gene” that randomly inserts itself in the genome, sometimes disrupting a color gene.

At least the GMO varieties had to go through some sort of characterization of their biochemical properties.

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.