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.   

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.

Back when President Obama got elected, he promised to include Washington outsiders in his new administration.  In that vein, anyone could go to the change.gov website and submit a resume to be “considered for a position in the Obama-Biden administration”.  I, along with a number of members of my church community, did so.  None of us really thought we were likely to be contacted, but the whole idea was still kind of cool.

In August of 2009, while I was selling our ranch’s beef at the Georgetown Farmer’s Market, I got a call from the White House personnell office asking if I’d be interested in following up on my application.  Once they convinced me they were for real, and that the position wouldn’t require me to leave my beloved Texas, I embarked on an 9-month process of interviews, FBI background checks, paperwork and more paperwork.  In the end, I became one of three Presidential nominees for the board of directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, fondly known as “Farmer Mac“.  Tomorrow, I am scheduled to appear before the Senate Ag Committee to be confirmed.

Farmer Mac is the ag equivalent of the better known Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It is a publicly held (i.e. for profit) institution created by government mandate to help make loans available to rural america.  Of the 15 directors, 5 are appointed by the President.  The job of the Presidential appointees, as representatives of rural America, is to help make sure that Farmer Mac meets its mission.

I’ve been in Washington all week.  At 45 years old, I can safely say I am no longer a wide-eyed innocent, full of idealistic dreams.  However, my week here has made me excited to begin this new adventure.  It is encouraging that a small rancher, not to mention one who makes much of her living through farmer’s markets, would be chosen for this position.  These are interesting times for agriculture and for our economy.  The status quo is being examined and many new ideas are being thrown into the mix.  I look forward to listening, learning and doing my small part create solutions.

One of the top priorities for our direct-market beef customers is that we raise animals without the routine use of antibiotics. That concern is second only to their desire to purchase meat from animals that have not been raised in a feedlot.

We are not an organic operation, even though we use only organic fertilizer and mechanical (no herbicides) weed control. The main reason we are not organic is that I feel it is in our animals’ best interest to be able to treat them in whatever way needed if they get sick or injured.  Sometimes that means antibiotics.  If we were “no antibiotics” or “organic”, any animal we treated would have to be sold at the sale barn into a feedyard.  

In four years of selling beef, I’ve had only one or two customers who have said they specifically wanted beef from totally non-treated animals.  Since we maintain a production history on each animal and know from which animal each package of beef was harvested, we can accomodate these few.

Over the five years we’ve been stewards of our ranch, the need for antibiotics and other “non-organic” treatement has decreased dramatically.  Our soils have gotten healthier and we’ve developed a complex ecosystem of plants for the animals to graze.  We’ve culled (or harvested) animals that don’t do well with fewer interventions. 

But, what about the mainstream beef industry?  A report by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production included recomendations for a ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. This in turn prompted pending legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics of for nontherapeutic purposes.   Nontherapeutic is defined as “any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine purpose.” 

Antibiotics, when used routinely in intensive production (i.e. confinement) do increase feed efficiency, increase growth rates, and lower the incidence of disease.  We designed our operation with a “no routine antibiotics” pledge not because we were against antibiotics, but because we felt that a situation in which routine antibiotics showed significant benefit was one in which the animals were under stress.  I doubt if our cattle would show any benefit from the addition of any antibiotic feed additive.

One doesn’t have to search far to find written opinions on this issue.  BEEF magazine has had articles and an editorial discussion of the PEW report on the issue.   From a bovine veterinarian’s point of view, banning antibiotic use would increase disease, animal suffering and human health risks. 

My own viewpoint is that this is a whole-systems issue, not one that can be addressed piecemeal.  A ban on routine antibiotic use must coordinate with adjustments in production systems resulting in less stress to the animal, less exposure to disease and an overall healthier environment.  These adjustments will also likely result in an increase in the price of meat.  If the ban is passed, there will be casualties; animal and business.  I think it’s an adjustment worth making, but it must be made intelligently and wholistically.

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.

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.

There was a very nice article about Joel Salatin (made famous to many in The Ominvore’s Dilemma).  There are lots of nice articles about Joel, but what made this one news-worthy to me is that it was picked up in the daily news feed of BEEF magazine.  BEEF is a mainstream beef industry publication. 

The beef industry, as does much of mainstream agriculture, often takes an atagonistic position relative to us “alternative production” types.  I found it encouraging that BEEF posted the article.  One of the things that frustrates me as a agriculturalist is this “either-or” tension between farmers growing for the local market and farmers growing for larger, more mainstream outlets.  Even though we raise registered Angus and Red Angus breeding stock, for sale to mainstream producers, we have on occasion been accused of “damaging the beef industry” because we also sell pasture-raised beef locally.

Kudos to BEEF magazine.  I’ll be interested in watching the comments.

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.

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?