A vegan lifestyle may increase the risk of developing blood clots and atherosclerosis, according to an article in Science News. 

After a review of studies of vegetarianism, the authors of the peer-reviewed article conclude that vegan diets (no meat or animal product of any kind) tend to lack iron, zinc, B12 and several fatty acids.  All of these are found at relatively high levels in meat, compared to vegetarian foods. 

Fatty acids, specifically omega-3s influence the ratio of LDL:HDL cholesterol.  Contrary to widely held beliefs, cholesterol is necessary.  it is a component of cell membranes and many hormones.  A 2-minute search on Amazon reveals numerous titles on the emerging realization that fat is not the enemy.  The Westin A Price Foundation has been promoting healthy fat for a long time.

Extreme diets of any kind, from vegan to no grain, are inherently unbalanced.  We are omnivores, and our bodies depend on food from a variety of sources.   

The professor/philospher in me is compelled to make the following observation:  Any practice taken to an extreme, or adhered to as a dogma, produces imbalance.  This is the philosophy we follow at when producing beef, in  our spiritual practice and our diet. 

One of my favorite parts of raising cattle is naming.  Every animal born on our property gets a name, even if we know at birth that its destiny is as part of our pastured beef business.  I’ve blogged about some of the reactions we get from our customers:  Some want to know the name, some don’t.

We started out using names from music, since we got our start in Austin, Texas.  Since then, we’ve evolved a system of naming that helps us to keep track of animals through their names, such as their sire, family, group or birth year. 

This year, we have two main groups of names.  The first group are all calves that are sired by a Devon bull out of New Zealand.  All of his calves have names that are places in New Zealand or Australia.  So far, we’ve got Hobart, Brisbane, Cambridge, Tamborine and Pukekura.  I’m holding out for the one we name “waikikamukau” (pronounce Why-kick-a-moo-cow), which is a small town in New Zealand.

The second group of calf names are for those sired by Red Angus or Black Angus bulls.  There is an international identification system for cattle, which specifies a single letter to designate the year of birth in each animal’s ID.  This year, the letter is Y.  There is a 22-year cycle to the ID (letters I, O, U and V are not used).  As it turns out, one of my favorite years for music, 1967, was also a “Y” year.  So, most of our the Angus/Red Angus sired calves for 2011 will have names from one of the Billboard top 100 from 1967.  Georgy Girl was our first calf of the year.  I expect we will end up with Ruby Tuesday, Daydream Believer, Billie Joe and more by the end of the year.  What was your favorite song from that year?

Naming each animal makes each one an individual, rather than a commodity.  By name, I can usually recall a picture of each animal and its characteristics.  When we harvest, the names help me to be grateful to the creatures that provide our livelihood, as well as good food for our family and our customers’ families.   

The recent recall of commercial eggs has led to lots of questions about food safety. Unprecedented numbers of people, many of them new to farmer’s markets, are flocking (pardon the pun) to purchase eggs that they believe to be safer than those in the grocery store.  But there are some missing pieces in the search for “clean and safe food”; it’s not as simple as “buy fresh, buy local”

As Americans have become further removed from their food supply, they have lost touch with the fact that food is a biological product, produced in biological situations from biological animals that have biological functions.  Translation:  everything poops.  We have gotten so used to our food being sterilized that we have forgotten about basic food safety.  I also happen to believe that because we are not exposed to low levels of normally occuring bacteria as we grow up, when we do encounter these normal bugs, they give us a pathogenic reaction. 

ALL foods are subject to ‘conatimination’.  Salmonella occurs in all birds and reptiles.  It is usually not a pathogenic strain, but it is still there.  Similarly, various strains of E. coli are present in every bit of feces.  Pastuerization, irradiation, buying direct from a farmer you trust; none of these are substitutes for basic food safety.

Do I think eggs and ground beef are safer if you buy them from a local source that you can trust?  Generally, yes.  However, even the cleanest hen house will still produce eggs with salmonella on the outside.  Even single-animal, small plant, grass-fed ground beef can harbor E. coli.  So, follow basic food safety guidelines:  Separate preparation areas and utensils between raw items and cooked.  Refrigerate food quickly after cooking, etc. etc. 

If you want to read more, search our Food Safety archives, or check out these posts:

http://downtoearthblog.com/agriculture/is-local-food-safer-or-just-more-accountable/archives/184

http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/no-need-to-avoid-beef-if-you-know-its-source/archives/211

http://downtoearthblog.com/health/teaching-children-about-food-safety/archives/163 

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.   

 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 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.

Now that spring is fully upon us and the produce is really starting to come in, many folks are beginning to think about finding or joining a CSA.  CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture, and is basically a way of sharing in the farmer’s production year.   The basic idea is that one enrolls or purchases a share in the production of a farm for a year or a season.  In return, you are first in line for the production, but you also share in the risk of crop failures and the ups and downs of the season.  CSAs aren’t for everyone.  Typically you pay an enrollment fee and then receive either a weekly (in the case of produce) or monthly box of products.

We run one of the few meat CSAs in our area of the country.  Our CSAs enable our customers to get their beef at nearly the same price as purchasing an entire half beef, but they get it in 20 pound increments each month.  Since we need to estimate our beef needs 18 months ahead, having a core of CSA members really helps us to plan.  It is also much more efficient for us to divide a beef into 12 equal shares than to sell by the individual cut at the markets (although at least half of our business is still done by the cut).

Local Harvest had a great article on finding and choosing a more traditional garden produce CSA.   When considering whether or not to join a CSA,  there are a few questions that you might ask yourself.

• Do I like to cook and does my schedule allow me to make homemade meals most evenings?
• Will it be fun to vegetables that are new to me?
• How will I handle excess produce? (Do you have a neighbor who would like to get some if you get “behind”?) Feeling bad about wasting food is one of the top reasons former CSA members site for not renewing.
• Am I willing to accept the unknowns involved in “shared risk”?

Shopping around for a CSA is also a good idea.  It might be a good idea to ask if you can talk to some of the existing customers.  Also find out how long the farmer has been doing CSAs.  They can be a bit tricky to manage until the farmer gets the hang of planning.  It’s great to help out someone just starting out, but that should be an informed decision.CSAs can be a great fit and can benefit consumer and producer.

At Wild Type Ranch, our CSA customers usually get the best beef, and are the first ones in line when the supply gets tight.  Good luck and bon appetit!

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.

I often encounter reluctance to try local pastured meats (much less pay a premium price for them) because there is a general bias in this country that “grain fed” is higher quality.  I suspect most of Wild Type Ranch’s first-time customers buy our beef because of one or more of the following reasons; we’re local, no feedlots, no hormone implants, no routine antibiotics, compassionate animal care, environmental stewardship, grass/pastured meat health benefits.  Unless they’ve been referred by an existing customer, “quality” or “fantastic eating experience” isn’t usually mentioned.

I just returned from four days at the “Gourmet Beef on Grass III” conference. My head is swimming with ideas, inspiration and new questions.

The main focus of the conference was producing quality beef using sustainable methods.  It doesn’t happen without knowledge and planning,  but more and more ranchers are creating a “wow” eating experience for their customers.
Not all beef is created equal, however.  If you are a consumer, here’s the CLIF notes to getting good beef locally:

• Buy beef from someone who is knowledgeable about beef.  Great beef doesn’t just happen, it takes good management and good genetics.
• Ask what breed or kind of cattle are producing the beef.  Good beef is more likely to come from English breeds, which include Angus, Red Angus, Devon, Lowline, Hereford, Dexter and Shorthorn.
• Ask how old the cattle are when they are harvested.  Good beef comes from cattle that grow at a reasonably steady rate.  If the beef is from animals older than about 30 months,the flavor MAY be stronger than you like, and the meat is less likely to be well-marbled and tender.
• Ask if the producer has taste-tested steaks from the beef they are selling, or otherwise guaranteed tenderness.
• Ask for a guarantee (replacement or refund) on your beef.
• Pay attention to the brand you are buying.  Find beef you like and stick to that producer or brand. (then you won’t have to ask these questions each time!)

Great beef is out there, and more and more ranchers are producing it.  At this conference, we scientifically tested the tenderness of 12 different steaks from different producers (including 3 of ours).  All twelve scored in the “tender” category.  I challenge anyone to buy steaks from the regular meat case at twelve grocery stores that would score tender 12 /12 times.

Tenderness, in particular, is something someone growing cattle for the feedlot is not paid for, so will not breed into their cattle.  When you buy direct from the rancher, however, it is among our primary quality concerns.  That’s why our ranch has a strict policy of “if it’s not tender and juicy, we don’t sell it”.  We’re not alone among local brands.

If you haven’t ventured into the land of locally produced, pastured meat, take your CLIF notes, find yourself a good producer and get ready to spoil yourself for life.

Sometimes we need a little reminder about our “highest calling” in this life.

It’s a tough time to be in business for one’s self, and to be in the ranching business seems to be even tougher.  Sometimes, my husband and I think we’d be better off just holding the ranch as an investment in land, rather than trying to run a natural beef and angus breeding stock business.  My head is usually in the numbers (even in my sleep); budgets, breeding values, calf weights, DNA test scores…

Today, I made some choices with my time that left me behind in my “business necessities” at the end of the day, and feeling a bit overwhelmed.  What was supposed to be 2 hours working at the elementary school book fair turned out to be 4 because no one showed up to take my place.  Teacher conferences, homework, and errands seemed to take up the rest of the “business” day.

Late this evening, when I came in from packing up orders for tomorrow’s farmer’s markets and deliveries, I found the following post from fellow ranch-wife, Karen.  Karen and her husband are less than 2 weeks away from the annual breeding stock sale that makes or breaks their financial year.  Today, Karen had time for her Mom, a turtle and a young wife in need of chili-counseling.

Today, I heard from both of my children’s teachers that they are an asset in the classroom, and both are looked to as leaders by the other students.  [this is the boys’ first year in public school, so it has been an adjustment and a concern for us].

If I was still working as an executive, I’m not sure they’d be in the same place.  I’m darn sure I wouldn’t have spent the morning at the book fair. Carpe tortuga (seize the turtle)