One of the most common questions our ranch gets from new customers is “Is your beef grass-fed?”  We are proud to raise our cattle entirely on pasture with a diet that is always primarily grass and hay.  But, we do not fit the USDA definition of “grass-fed”.  This is a conscious decision on our part.

 The guiding principle behind our management practices at the ranch is a dedication to the welfare of our animals and the quality of our product.  It is a fact of life in our region of Texas that we do not grow lush, green grass year round, year-in and year-out.  We are working hard at the ranch to build our soil and balance our cattle numbers so that we become relatively immune to our increasingly frequent droughts. 

In the meanwhile, we don’t feel it is in the best interest of our cattle, or our beef quality, to allow our cattle to lose weight or suffer due to poor quality or insufficient home-raised forage.  Consequently, we sometimes supplement our cattle with alfalfa hay or a minimal amount of feed that contains grain.  Ironically, the “grass-fed” rules allow supplementation with feeds such as cotton seed hulls and beet pulp but not oats and corn, which cattle would seek out and eat naturally if given the chance.  The problem with feeding grain comes when cattle are fed a diet that is primarily high-energy grain (such as corn) which changes the pH and natural flora of the cow’s digestive system.  This is not the way our pasture-raised cattle are fed.  We give our cattle the best quality of life possible and produce a healthy, high-quality product.

Yes, we have lost an occasional customer because of our philosophy.  It is a small price to pay for the quality of our beef and the welfare of the animals in our care.

One of our customers is an aspiring writer who recently moved to Austin.  She is honing her skills and exploring our community all at the same time.

I spent some time with her in February talking about the ranch, our philosophy, etc.  She wrote a very nice piece about it on her blog.

Getting out and talking with people is one of my favorite parts of being a direct-to-consumer food producer.  I get a chance to be an educator (and often the pupil at the same time).  My days at the farmer’s markets always bolster my faith in humanity.  Even though I come home tired, I am also energized by the good people with whom I interact.

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.

About six weeks ago, Wild Type Ranch (our family business) harvested its first European-style, pasture-raised, milk-and-grass-fed veal.  It’s been a lesson in the workings of ag-bureauracracy.

99% or more of the veal harvested in this country is “milk-fed veal”, meaning it is primarily from dairy bull calves removed from the cow at birth, fed only milk replacer (or sometimes milk) and confined.  This produces the very pale, very tender veal Americans have come to expect. 

Pastured veal is left on its mother and is free to graze alongside her in the pasture up to the point of harvest.  Pastured veal is darker and has more flavor than confinement veal, but is still very sweet in flavor and very tender.  The first of our own veal loin chops we tasted were some of the best, most elegant meat I’ve ever had.

For our first harvest, I was told by our local inspector (with whom I have a positive relationship) that I could not use the word “veal” to label the cuts on the package. The chief inspector for the state said veal had could not be raised on pasture, based on the FSIS FAQ on veal, which talks only about the commonly available veal.  Never mind that the USDA specifially defines 4 classes of veal, including “non-special fed veal” that includes pasture-raised.  So, that first harvest got labelled “ground beef”, “beef cutlets”, etc.  At each farmer’s market I had to explain to each customer buying the veal that it really was veal, and that they should write on the label (I’m technically not allowed to add anything to the approved label), to make sure they didn’t get it mixed up with their beef.

Not willing to give up, I persevered and ended up speaking to a woman in D.C. at FSIS.  As it turns out, FSIS has approved a national label for Strauss Free-Raised veal, which is very similar to ours.  She kindly backed up my assertion that our pre-weaned calves were indeed veal.  I thought my problems were solved.

Round 3:  I have submitted my “production protocol” that documents our veal is veal and have been granted permission to use veal cut names on the label.  The catch:  Now that it is veal, I can no longer use my “Wild Type Ranch pasture-raised natural Angus beef” label.  The reasoning: This is veal, so it can’t be beef.  So, now I have to go through the time and expense of designing, submitting for approval and printing a new label. 

What was beef 6 weeks ago because it wasn’t veal now isn’t beef because it is veal.

In another 6 weeks, maybe I’ll get to label it as such.

See our previous post on veal for background information. 

Functional Foods are defined as foods that, in addition to nutrition, offer distinct health benefits.

The term usually brings to mind “added” features, such as enrichment with probiotics, omega-3’s, or other components that are added through processing.

I was pleased to see that 4 of the 5 “best functional foods” listed by the New York Dietetic Association are whole, unprocessed and readily available.   Pro-biotic enhanced yogurt was the only processed food to make the top 5, and it came in at number 5.   As an added benefit, they all are on my list of favorite foods!

The other foods were

Number 1:  Salmon (Omega-3 content for heart and brain health)

Number 2:  Whole-grain Oatmeal (fiber for digestive health and lowering risk of heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes and cancer)

Number 3: Blueberries (antioxidants for protection against free radicals and anti-aging)

Number 4:  Low-fat milk (high levels of calcium and vitamin D for strong bones, regulating blood pressure and heart rate)

Looks like a breakfast of oatmeal cooked in milk and topped with blueberries, with a yogurt lunch and salmon for supper is a top rate menu for the day!

I recently read a new report on consumer’s attitudes about food technologies.  The report was done by the Food Standards Agency (an independent UK Government department aiming to protect the public’s health and consumer interests in relation to food).

“Overall, the public was found to be wary, uneasy and uncertain about emerging food technologies. Having said
this, emerging food technologies tend not to be top-of-mind concerns”

I’m not all that surprised, but it set me to thinking about our attitudes toward “new” in food and how it’s changed since the 50s and 60s.
Over at Texas Locavore, I saw a video of a new short film on slow food:  “Slowing Down” by Adrian Tapia

The film blames our fascination with new technology as a big part of the reason we got so far away from “slow food” and became that infamous fast-food nation.But if we were so anxious to try everything new “back when’; from microwaves to Mel-mac dinnerware (remember when plastic was “cool”?) what’s changed?  I think there are several reasons:

• “New” is no longer new; technology is advancing so rapidly that we are being overrun with ‘new’ every day.  Perhaps we are feeling out of control?
• Trust; I suspect that those making food purchase decisions in the 50s and 60s had a much greater trust level in government and the media than consumers do now.
• Balance: Personally, I think we’ve gotten out of balance with consuming in many ways.  There is increasing nostalgia for simpler times and new technologies don’t fit in with that.
• Emotional Arguments: In our web-enabled age, consumers are bombarded with information and emotional arguments against technologies (often with slanted science) abound.  The report found that emotion was a primary driver in opinions about food technologies.

All of this begs the question which prompted the report in the first place:  Should consumer opinion shape government policy on food technology?

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.

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.

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.

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.