A great visual that highlights our need for meat.

Personally, I think this speaks for itself.

Related posts:

1. Bring Me the Meat! (weekly menu 13)
2. “The Portland Meat Collective” (or) The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
3. Interview with Mark Bittman

It’s responsible for developing and implementing government policy on farming, agriculture and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and abroad. (See source.)

The mission of the USDA is eloquent and lofty, idealistic and audacious. It’s a shame that the reality is both bleak and deeply disturbing. To make this point, let me share with you an article I recently read on the disastrous consequences of USDA policy.

On the blog, Politics of the Plate, Barry Estabrook recently posted, “USDA Red Tape Stands in Way of Humane Slaughter Techniques and Local Sustainable Meat Production.” Estabrook, a former contributing editor of Gourmet magazine, provides excellent blogging on the politics of food – be it environmental concerns, economic or public health. His latest entry examines the debilitating effects of certain USDA livestock policies.

A huge problem with USDA standards on livestock production is akin to the dark sides of the organic food movement. In short, when the government mandates standardized certifications for food production, those with less resources (i.e. money) are more likely to fail. Nowadays the story is commonplace:

Let’s say you decide to become a farmer. After much thought and market-research, you decide that organic produce is the way to go. Upon following this righteous path, you learn that to be certified organic there are many steps to take and rules to follow. On top of this, you must also pay a $500 yearly tax for the organic certification. Unless you have the resources (money, time, land, workers, etc) to meet all of the standard requirements for organic certification, you my friend, will not be officially recognized as an organic farmer.

This same story follows the fate of small, often family-operated, livestock operations. In the context of slaughtering animals (like growing organic produce), there are certain laws that farmers must follow. One of these rules, arguably a very important one, is the process by which an animal is slaughtered.

Estabrook begins with the fact that 84% of meat production in America is processed by four corporations – Tyson, Cargill, Swift and National Beef packing, and thus sets the stage for the underdog. Unlike CAFOs that send 5,000 cows a day to be slaughtered, what guidelines are provided for farmers raising 5 cows? Where are they to send their cows?

Technically and legally, these cows should be sent to a certified slaughtering house to be killed, chopped up and packaged. If you’re a farmer who does not live next-door to the slaughtering facility, you have to ship your animals there. Whether you live 1 hour away or 10 hours away, you have to rely on certified facilities to legally sell you meat.

The consequences of such negligent policy is seen across rural landscapes in our country. Beside the diminishing number of farmers, the hardships are felt deepest by localized economies.  And thus, the grand irony shines through:

The USDA aims “to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, protect natural resources, foster rural communities…,” and such lofty intentions damage the infrastructure of farmers, ranchers, natural resources and rural communities. The market-driven mentality that promotes factory farming is completely destroying small, family farms and the local economy they inhabit.

In the end, I am reminded of the need for critical consumption, food literacy and localized food systems. If we want to eat animals raised on pasture by a farmer we know and trust, who may even slaughter the animals on the land they grazed all their lives…

we might just have to break the law.

(Or, if you want to abide the law and still support small, family livestock farms. Go here for more details.)

Related posts:

1. Local Food Movement Gains Serious Support
2. The Dark Side of the Organic Food Movement
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 2)

Although not aesthetically pleasing, freezing is a simple process for the preserving novice.

Since the purchase of a stand-up freezer, the opportunity for mass food preservation reigns. For the last several months I have slowly stocked up on random items. This week I compiled a list of all the current packages, including content and quantity. Between the big freezer and the one atop our refrigerator we have the following foods:

• 1/3 of a gallon bag filled with dried figs (foraged this summer and fall)
• 6 quart bags filled half-way with partially cooked chanterelles and their juices, (foraged this fall)
• 2 gallon bags of blueberries (purchased in August)
• 3 gallon bags of blackberries (foraged this summer)
• 6 quart bags of roasted red bell peppers (read this for the story)
• 6 quart bags of sliced peaches (bought in August)
• 2 gallon bags of ratatouille (here’s the recipe)
• 1 gallon of fresh corn soup (rather ironic to have froze this) (here’s the recipe)
• 5 quart bags of corn kernels (purchased in August)
• 4 chicken carcasses

This list does not include this month’s meat order from Afton Field Farm. On Thursday I will pick up the following:

• 1/2 a lamb, half of which is being shared with a friend; the total weight for our household will be about 20 pounds.
• 2 whole chickens
• 1 pound of chicken feet
• 3 dozen eggs
• 1 pound of ground beef

It’s important for me to explain why I ordered so much meat. The farm does not raise enough lamb to sell individual cuts. Since lamb is my favorite animal to eat, I wanted to have some for the rest of the winter. Like produce, animals are seasonal. Unless the farm raises large numbers of different animals and has the freezer space for all the cuts, certain species are available during certain times of the year. For example, lamb is mostly slaughtered in the spring and fall. Chickens are slaughtered in the early summer through late fall. I think cows are slaughtered year round as they are able to gain weight through the winter time. As you might expect, I think it’s important to consider the seasonality of meat, since animals do not naturally graze year round (at least in this part of America.)

Aside from the limitation of getting lamb, I am also sharing the order with a friend. Buying 40 pounds of lamb is a bit extreme, even for us. The other portions of the order are part of our monthly needs. In other words, the lamb is a long-term investment and the chicken, eggs and beef are short-term.

With all of this frozen meat, produce and cooked meals, this morning I had a revelation. In my mind, food preservation, be it canning, freezing, drying, curing, etc, is a means eating different foods when they are no longer in season. Therefore, it makes sense to eat all of these things during winter and early spring; and then the cycle begins again. Adding up the total quantity of frozen foods (excluding meat) there is a total of 32 bags. If, starting the first week of December, we ate one bag a week, we would have enough items to last 4 months! Clearly we could not sustain ourselves from December to March, but we can include some wonderful flavors in the mix. This calculation is even off a bit because I know we will be out of town at various times. I suppose I’d rather over estimate than under.

After making this calculations, I am excited to add a new element to our meal planning. Starting in December I can add a new variable to the process. Once this begins I will try to post once a week on the use of these different frozen foods.

For a geek like me this rather exciting!

Related posts:

1. Filling up the freezer
2. Grocery-free Living
3. Food Fantasies

I do not speak here with hyperbole. In our society we, as consumers, are are often blind to the “hidden costs” of the products or services we purchase. The classic example of this is food; and as a ‘food blog,’ I will discuss this issue in the context of my advocacy for grass-fed and pasture-raised animals.

Many folks in my peer group recognize the environmental and economic dangers of both industrial agriculture and factory farming. After the release of films like Food, Inc. and King Corn, and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore Dilemma, I think the politics of the food movement are embracing a wider audience. The fight against industrial food production has gone on for many, many years. I am proud to admit that I am new to “the movement,” and that I have much to learn in its history and so forth. That said, I do believe that the current explosion of food-related concerns in the mainstream are significant and of deeper examination. The article written by Michael Moss is a prime example.

Over the past several years there have been larger and more severe outbreaks of E. Coli, a deadly bacteria found in beef. The bacteria naturally exists inside the cow’s belly but given certain conditions, its potential to spread beyond the carcass is exponential. During the process-intensive slaughter and meat production there are numerous possibilities for contamination. The article discusses this at length. But what the article does not discuss, is why there is room for all of these contaminations. How are cows being raised and slaughtered so that there is room for E. Coli to survive?

To answer this question simply – cows are eating corn. Yes, cows are also raised in confined spaces, slaughtered in unsanitary conditions, and debased to the most inhumane standards possible; but the issue stems from corn. Cows do not naturally eat corn. Cows eat grass. Cows even have a special stomach to digest the grass, and yet it is cheaper to feed them corn. Since profitability is the name of the game, public health is of little concern. This point is most clearly demonstrated when

Dr. Kenneth Peterson, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.

Wow. There you have it. A top official for the USDA makes the claim that the industry is at par with the consumer in the buy/sell equation. It’s moments like this when I find it hard to respect or trust the government in this country. As a skeptic of democracy I feel like this man’s comment totally justifies my criticism of our nations holy mantra, ‘by the people, for the people.’ Clearly, in our age, its more like ‘by the corporation, for the corporation.’

…Back to the issue of corn. Because the cows are fed corn and they are not supposed to eat corn, the cows get sick. To combat a potential pandemic in our cow population, another industry is introduced – the drug makers. As you may have heard, cows are given antibiotics to combat illnesses. Well, over time and adjustment, the bacteria develop the means to survive the antibiotics and become even stronger and deadlier. Now we have strands of E. Coli that are significantly more dangerous than previous ones.

Another article I read on Moss’ piece made the following statement (better than I could have,)

In short, E. coli didn’t just “happen” to the meat industry—it’s a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis—just vague assurances that the USDA isn’t “standing still” on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on “managing” the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again.

Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. The only conclusion worth drawing from this expose is that industrial ground beef simply isn’t worth the risk. And without wholesale industry and regulatory reform—neither of which appears likely or even possible, it may never be.

At this point I want to suggest 2 solutions to the issue:

1. If you choose to eat meat, be certain that the animal was fed grass and as mentioned before, as close to 100% as possible. When cows do eat grass the strain will not survive. When you purchase this meat try your hardest to buy from a small-scale farm where industrial slaughter is out of the question. Find out where the animals are slaughtered. FInd out how large the slaughter house is and how many animals they process a day. As a consumer you have the right to know and all you have to do is ask. I also suggest finding a family-run farm (that is small and only raises animals on grass) because there’s more room for trust and transparency. If you ever got sick you know who to call. You can directly source the meat from your plate to the field. You are empowered by taking the extra steps as a consumer. If you are willing to take these steps, the best starting place is EatWild.com. This is an excellent site to find the type of farm I am recommending.
2. As a general rule, eat less meat. If you eat standard meat that is from animals fed corn, you are more likely to get heart disease and other meat-related illnesses. If you eat strictly grass-fed and pasture-raised meats you are not condemned to these chronic ailments (see the first manifesto for more.) Another reason to eat less meat is the Earth. If you believe in climate change or global warming then you must also recognize the impact of eating meat on the issue. (While I do eat meat and recognize meat’s impact, I do not see this as a total contradiction. I will write on this soon.)

As I continue to advocate for greater consumer intelligence in the realm of food consumption, I will always return to the issue of grass-fed vs. corn-based diets for animals. The health of us, as a nation and as individuals, will depend on our interest in making healthy choices and taking the time to fulfill them.

Share and Enjoy:

Related posts:

1. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
2. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 3)
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (Part I)

Taking pride in the foods we consume is trendy and popular in America right now. The organic movement has exploded in the last decade; the local food movement is growing strong; and sustainable means of food production are also gaining traction, (though this last term is less easily defined.) For me though, I am waiting for ‘grass-fed’ to join the mainstream lexicon. Well, maybe it has and maybe it hasn’t. Some people have heard the phrase, but I don’t think most folks know why this concept is so important. Consider this the beginning of why.

In past posts, I praised Joel Salatin and other farmers who practice sustainable farming techniques. The animals raised on these farms spend most of their life grazing, also known as “free range.” The environmental benefits of Salatin’s farming method are immense. Salatin claims that his techniques are “beyond-organic,” and to be honest, I think he may be right. It’s interesting that organic as a descriptive word and a concept has gained so much attention, even when the health benefits of organic foods is not completely proven. In my opinion, buying ‘organic’ has less to do with the health benefits for the individual and more to do with the larger environmental issues. And yet, there are clear health benefits to grass-fed and pasture-raised animals and this “ideal” has not entered the mainstream worldview. (We can blame this on industrial agriculture and its pal, Concentrated Animal Factory Operations or CAFOs.) Check this out.

So, why eat grass-fed and pasture-raised animals?

For me, there is one main reason to eat grass-fed and pasture-raised animals:                                                              1. Animals that live and eat this way are really, really healthy for you. When the animal lives a healthy existence you can be assured that its meat will make you healthy too.

Like most things on the internet, there are tons of resources to glean information. An excellent place to start is the Weston A. Price Foundation. According to the site, the foundation began as a place to share the knowledge of Dr. Weston Price. Dr. Price was a dentist and nutritionist and traveled the world studying the diets of non-industrialized people. In his research, Dr. Price found that modern society is plagued by numerous ailments (i.e. cavities, asthma, headaches, heart disease, cancer and other degenerative diseases.) And yet, he did not find any of these conditions among people living in non-industrialized communities. What were these people doing to avoid such awful ailments? His findings were and still are controversial. (See the Weston A. Price Foundation site for the details.) Americans have been consuming processed foods, refined sugar and refined flours for generations. And it is not hard to believe that corporations have hidden information from us for a long time. (See Marion Nestle’s Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.)

As consequence to the lobbying of industrial food, few people know about the health benefits of eating grass-fed and pasture-raised animals. Instead, we associate red meat with heart disease, eggs with heart attacks and butter with cholesterol. These connections exist because the vast majority of animal products (meat, milk, eggs and butter) come from animals eating outside their natural diet. Grocery-store beef is super fatty because the cow is eating grains and cows cannot digest grain! Cows ruminate which allows the cow to digest the cellulose in grass. Thus, in the case of grass-fed beef, the levels of saturated fatty acids are lower and the rates of monosaturated, polysaturated, omega-3 and omega-6 fats are considerably higher. (See some hard data here.) Upon learning this, it is especially striking to notice the jump in salmon consumption once word got out that wild salmon is high in omega-3 and 6. The reason why wild salmon is high in these healthy fats is because wild salmon eat grass! Well, they don’t eat grass but they do eat algae and plants in the ocean. And guess what?! Plants are the source for these omega-3 and 6 fats! And now the salmon population is decimated by over-fishing. Damn.

There is hope yet. Clearly we need to eat less wild salmon, maybe never eat it again – depending on your commitment to maintaining salmon populations. Or, eat it less often. Maybe only eat salmon on special occasions, like when you visit the NW and eat the fish as fresh as can be. Either way, I think the case is made for grass-fed and pasture-raised animals. If the case has not been made, check out this excellent site for more facts on the issue:

Eat Wild – One of the best websites for finding farms that are committed to grass-fed and pasture-raised animals. This site also has tons of facts and more sources for scientific data on the subject.

As you can see by the title of this post, this is the beginning of a conversation on grass-fed and pasture-raised animals. I like to consider myself an advocate for the cause, as I truly believe this is incredibly important information for all meat eaters. Eating meat should be a luxury not a convenience. And if you choose to live by this standard, then I suggest we all pay extra for animal products that will benefit the Earth and our health.

Related posts:

1. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
2. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 3)
3. “The Portland Meat Collective” (or) The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)