I was having a conversation with a friend the other night, debating the merits of grassfed beef. We talked over the specifics of feeding and finishing (whether the animal eats grain or grass for the last few months of its life), and the superior quality and flavor of meat produced from a grassfed a diet. But this wasn’t the first time I had discussed this information.

Grassfed beef is a “new” product in the marketplace and as with any new product, there is a great degree of variability. While the notion of bovines eating grass is as old as, well, bovines themselves, grassfed and grass-finished meat products are signposts of an emerging sustainable market.

Fifty years ago, most of the beef at the butcher counter was grassfed and maybe grain-finished for a very short period of time. Since then, we have moved to a feedlot-based system for preparing beef cattle for market, which means large-scale producers and processors have had fifty years to perfect their product, and consumers expect consistent results.

As anyone who has ever purchased organic produce or a CSA box knows, more natural production systems tend to mean a greater degree of variability in the final product. As grassfed producers improve upon their production systems, their beef will eventually become more consistent. Consumers will count on enjoying rich flavor without worrying about their meat being tough or dry.

Conventional Cattle Feeding

As we seek to be more informed consumers, how do these feeding and finishing techniques affect us?  How are grassfed cattle different from conventional cattle?  What do labels like “organic,” “natural,” and “free-range” mean?

To begin with, almost all beef cattle in the U.S. start their lives on grass. At about 7-9 months old, the almost 10.9 million cattle in the conventional production system move to a feedlot where they are “grain-finished” for about 6-8 months before slaughter. Most of these feedlots are in the central part of the country, with 71 percent of feedlot cattle residing in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas and Texas. At the feedlot, cattle diet consists of grains (like corn) and some roughage (either corn silage or hay). Feed by-products, from the production of food or industrial products, are also part of the diet at many of these feedlots. The by-products category includes things like leftover distiller’s grains from an ethanol plant or brewery, soybean meal from soybean oil production, and even defective cookies and chips from food production.

Grass-fed and Grass-finished Cattle

Grassfed and grass-finished cattle, on the other hand, spend their entire life consuming grass. Their diets and rotational grazing patterns contribute to low caloric intake and high activity, which means that grassfed cattle take a longer time to reach their slaughter weight. They are typically about 18-24 months when slaughtered.

Age is an important criteria in the taste and texture of beef. If the cow is too young, its meat will lack flavor. If the cow is too old, its meat can be tough. Certain breeds of cattle are more suited to grassfed production systems. Forgotten breeds, like Shorthorns and American Devon, fell out of favor during the rise of the feedlot but are now making a comeback.

Marketing Labels

Beef producers who feed their cattle only grass or hay are approved by the USDA to label their meat “grassfed.” This certification is limited in scope: it does not stipulate where hay is fed (it could be in a feedlot) or whether antibiotic or hormone restrictions apply. The Cornucopia Institute has proposed a three-tier label system that would tell consumers how and where the animal was fed and finished. You can view their position paper here.  In addition to the USDA, the American Grassfed Association (AGA) allows AGA members to place the “AGA Grassfed” seal of approval on packages containing beef raised in an unconfined environment on 100 percent grass or hay, without the use of growth hormones.

“Organic” beef shares elements of both the grassfed and the grain-finished model. In order to bear the “USDA Organic” seal, organic cattle must be raised on organic certified pasture and fed organic certified hay or organic certified feed. No antibiotics or growth hormones can be administered to the animal.

Just as the picture of a happy cow in a red barn on your milk carton doesn’t mean that your 2 percent came from such a setting, “natural” and “free-range” labels are purely marketing terms and have no standards or certification requirements. Per the USDA, all fresh meat must be “natural” (free of artificial flavorings, colors or preservatives) regardless of how it was raised or what it was fed.  As far as “free range” is concerned, per USDA standards, this term only applies to poultry (whether the animal had access to the outdoors or not) and is meaningless on a package of beef.

With so many labels, what’s a consumer to do? Ask questions. Ask LOTS of questions. Talk to your rancher, butcher or waiter, and find out what the animal was fed, where it lived, and how old it was when it was slaughtered.  If you are interested in how the animal was treated, find out if the product is American Humane Certified, Certified Humane Raised and Handled or Animal Welfare Approved.

Lastly, pay attention to taste. Be mindful of the quality of food you are putting into your body.

Photo: Mark Baldwin

Nicolette Hahn Niman has been thinking about livestock for nearly a decade. Before she married (and began ranching with) Bill Niman, founder of Niman Ranch*, Nicolette worked as a senior attorney for Waterkeeper Alliance where she was in charge of the organization’s campaign to reform the concentrated livestock and poultry industry. Nicolette spoke with CUESA recently about greenhouse gas emissions, the sustainable livestock tipping point, and her book Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms (HarperCollins, 2009). She also authored a New York Times op-ed on Saturday called The Carnivore’s Dilemma.

What made you want to write Righteous Porkchop?

Many of the books on this topic have been written by people who are totally opposed to raising animals for food — they think it’s ravaging the environment and that it’s inherently inhumane. Then there are people who think we can all eat as much meat as we want, and they believe the criticism of over-consumption is hype, that it’s coming from a bunch of “wackos.” I think that if done in the right location and at the right scale, livestock farming is a very valuable part of food production. I heard Fred Kirschenmann say recently that he knows of no healthful ecosystem that doesn’t involve animals; I agree with that. I believe sustainable farming really should mimic nature and nature involves plants and animals and they work together. On the other hand, I believe that meat should be consumed in moderation — like dark chocolate and red wine.

If you ask people if they eat meat in moderation, it’s likely that the vast majority would say yes. What’s your definition of “moderation”?

I’d say no more than once a day. My husband is an interesting case study; he transitioned from being someone who often ate meat two times a day to being married to me for the last 6 yrs — I’m a vegetarian and do all the cooking in the house — so he now eats meat less than once a day and smaller portion sized than he used to. I’d say he’s reduced his consumption more than 50%.

He’s really aware of all the concerns surrounding livestock production, and he and I are both aware that meat is resource intensive. I believe each person has a responsibility to not take more than their share of the world’s resources.

Is there enough land to produce all the meat we currently consume in this country on pasture?

Well, we would have to reduce the total number of animals produced — at least somewhat. But I like to point out that when you’re raising animals in confinement, you end up using a lot of land — the animals just aren’t on it. You still have to raise the crops to feed those animals and then you have to re-apply the waste to land.

When it comes to non-grazing omnivores like pigs and chickens, a rotation system that has them pastured on land between using it to grow crops — in my view that’s actually a more efficient use of land than raising them in confinement.

It would certainly require more land when you’re talking about cattle, and I’ve never seen a good calculation, but I don’t think it’s an amount of land that couldn’t be found. There is data [pointing to the fact that] pasture is an incredibly good use of land, compared to crop land.

Earlier this year, there was a lot of discussion of a study that said that grass-finished beef accounted for more greenhouse gas emissions than corn-finished beef. What’s your take on data like that?

I have heard evidence that when you have range-fed animals, especially if they’re on poor quality range, that they produce more methane than feedlot animals. But, because the overall GHG emissions are so much less when you’re talking about traditional meat production versus factory style or feedlot production, it’s not a compelling argument just to isolate that one issue.

I looked at a paper out of Scotland that linked emissions to grass fed animals that were raised on land with a lot of agricultural chemicals applied to it — herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. The majority of cattle in the US are living on land that has not been chemically treated and certainly has not been fertilized. It’s also possible to provide fairly simple supplements in the form of a mineral lick, etc. that will actually reduce enteric emissions from cattle grazing on poor quality pasture. There are a number of different ways that it can be addressed and I honestly think it’s kind of a red herring.

Do you see signs that big agribusiness is taking notice and feeling threatened by the movement to produce and eat meat in a new way?

I think that we’re getting close to a tipping point. There are enough people who have enough information and agribusiness has had to face the fact that none of this is going away. When I started working on these issues eight years ago, the mainstream food industry still thought that if they just kept ignoring the opposition, it would go away. Now, they recognize there’s writing on the wall — people are more interested in knowing where their food is coming from, they’re more concerned about food safety. They care about quality, seasonality, food miles, etc. — all these concepts are coming into mainstream parlance that were French a decade ago.

Is there anything else you want to add?

When they hear about industrial livestock production, a lot of people say I’m just going to stop eating pork – and I’d say please don’t, because then the farmers who are doing it right aren’t getting your support. I also think it can be fun to explore new foods and new places, and to get a better taste experience. I want to get people thinking about [eating a variety of pasture-raised meats] as an adventure — because once you embark on it, that’s what it becomes.

*No longer affiliated with Niman Ranch, the couple now maintains their own BN Ranch in Bolinas, CA.

This piece caused a flap on Civil Eats a couple weeks back and it got people talking, which is what is supposed to happen here. Responsible and passionate meat wholesalers and processors like Marissa Guggiana, who believe animals should be raised humanely in ways that are healthy for eaters, the soil, the water, and ecosystems weighed in, as did many readers.

As many commenters pointed out, the study I cited didn’t compare grass-finished animals raised the way Dave Evans at Marin Sun Farms or Joel Salatin raise theirs. It’s true that beef raised on pasture and fertilized by the animals can sequester carbon, but the problem is with the animals themselves. Ruminant animals emit methane gas, no matter what you feed them or how they are raised and the producers who use integrated pasture management techniques instead of chemicals are a minority. Methane gas is said to be 21-23 times more effective at warming the planet than CO2. For a long time I thought grass-finished beef was much better for the environment because of how it’s raised.

But strictly from a global warming perspective, I no longer believe that is true. The piece I wrote was about my own struggle with the ethics of eating meat (as it relates to the animals themselves and the environment—especially global warming) and the progression of ideas from the people who have influenced me and many others. Coming to terms with ruminant animal’s contribution to climate change is the next phase in the progression of my personal meat-eating ethics.

There are several producers local to my area who do it right. I will gladly eat the meat they provide (once in awhile). I am not now and have never been a vegetarian. I know that many Civil Eats readers feel the same and are members of meat CSAs and farmers’ market shoppers, friends of ranchers, or ranchers themselves. And I commend them.

It’s the other people I worry about.

In the face of a very real globalized, industrial food system, what choices will they make at the meat counter? Case in point: my local grocery store in Berkeley carries 3 different brands of grass-finished beef. One is from Uruguay, and the other two from the US, at least one is from California. Consumers who have a vague knowledge that grass-finished beef is more sustainable and healthier for them, will likely choose based on cost or where the beef is from. Not only will they not know how this beef was raised, but it won’t really matter from a methane emissions standpoint. We don’t even have to get into the environmental issues around buying beef from Uruguay. It’s a complex issue promising to get even more muddled as demand for sustainably raised meat grows and grocery and super stores get into the game. There will be a race to produce grass-fed beef as cheaply as possible through the same market forces that make organic milk at Wal-Mart affordable and organic only to the letter of the law. The latest news on global warming has me convinced that we cannot afford to simply replace grain fed animals with grass-fed ones. We need to eat a lot less meat. Or figure out how to deal with the methane.

Not everyone who wants to join a meat CSA can, due to supply constraints, and then there are plenty of people who wouldn’t care to. It’s about the methane as well as the transportation issues and the inefficiency inherent in eating animals instead of plants. I don’t advocate slaughtering all farm animals and requiring that everyone live on plants, but I think that we need to talk about this, and bring it out in the open so we can step up our already considerable efforts to develop a food system that is more sustainable and does not contribute more than its fair share (whatever that means) to global warming. Since livestock activities are said to be responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, cows seem like a good place to start.

Photo: Skinnyde

So we can just never eat meat again? Is that what all the science is telling us? Before you start gagging down fake bacon or eating your al pastor tacos behind a garbage bin on the other side of town out of sustainable food shame, let’s talk about the real problem.

Yes, beef is a hog when it comes to energy. And the Science News report correctly points out that it takes more energy input to output one pound of pasture-raised beef than it does a pound of feedlot CAFO Schwarzen-burger. Yes, the developing world is getting a taste for the cow, like blue jeans or Michael Jackson before, which could catapult the problem.

Don’t get hysterical! I just can’t blame those adorable sad-eyed critters. It isn’t the cow we need to nix. It is our centralized, monolithic, soulless food system. Sure, it takes a larger patch of earth and more calories to raise an animal on pasture. However, there are some benefits to many grass-fed operations that are more long-term, like biodiversity and sustainability. I know many ranchers that don’t fertilize with anything besides good old, nutrient rich poop.

The real energy suck in the beef industry is transportation, processing and packaging. If you want to save some carbon, help develop a local food system where animals travel relatively short distances to slaughter and then to butcher and then to consumer. Start a meat CSA! Buy a whole animal and start a garden and don’t drive to the grocery store so much, where you’ll be tempted to purchase other carbon-licious snacks.

And another thing: there ARE other animals to eat. As Science News mentioned, pigs are more efficient on feed and in breeding. They also yield more edible meat from the carcass. Eat some lardo, save the ozone. But there are also lambs and goats and chickens. According the USDA, Americans ate 28.1 billion pounds of beef in 2007.We eat about 100^th of that amount of lamb every year. If we diversify our meat choices, we would choose animals that are naturally less energy intensive and destructive than the Almighty Cow.

When I worry about the Third World being as gluttonous as us, it isn’t ribeyes that dance in my mind, it is factory farms and processing plants the size of small cities. The ‘blanding’ of our taste away from meat with any flavor is part of the institutionalization of a food system where everything comes from some other place. A place where styrofoam gently encases every machine-cut morsel.

Of course, it is crucial that everyone, from policy makers to home cooks, thinks about the implications of our food choices. That is a bedrock of the sustainability movement. And I encourage the discussion of whether, on a commercial scale, grass-fed beef is viable.

In the end, though, I think we tend to worry so much that a good idea isn’t perfect, in the meantime continuing to do something we know is bad. On my ethical calculator, I end up with the following equation: buy local from someone you trust who treats their animal with respect + cook all parts of the animal to value it’s contribution to your well-being = a hell of a lot better choice than anything from a feedlot.

Diversity is health, in living things and in solutions. Grass fed practices may not be the only right solution for a hungry world, but are one part of a better world.

The clamor is getting louder: Cows are bad news for the environment.

It’s astounding how far we’ve come in a few short years. It all started in spring 2006 with Michael Pollan telling us in The Omnivore’s Dilemma to think about how the animals we eat are raised. Because of the inherent cruelty, and human and environmental health problems associated with factory farming and CAFOs, thoughtful eaters like me, and many of the omnivorous people reading this, started eating pasture raised chickens and eggs, and grass-finished beef. It was more expensive, but I told myself I was facing up to the moral complexities of meat eating and it felt good knowing that the animals and the land were treated better in the production of my food. I embraced this more mindful way of eating and enjoyed treating meat as a special occasion food to be given my utmost respect and attention.

Later that same year, we learned that the food system is responsible for more greenhouse gasses (about one-third) than any other sector, including transportation, and that livestock is responsible for 18% of that. Michael Pollan published another book telling us to eat real food, not too much at that, and mostly plants. More recently Mark Bittman published Food Matters, which is essentially an environmental guide to eating, adopting some of the same principals we learned from Pollan (with recipes). Along the way, Bittman found that eating lower on the food chain more often and cutting out processed food, helped him lose 35 pounds, lower his cholesterol and blood sugar, and vastly improve his health. Then, back in December, here on Civil Eats, Paula Crossfield talked about eating less meat to lower our carbon emissions.

Now I’m going to reveal something that will make conscious, occasional, and passionate meat eaters very sad. While we’ve been enjoying our once or twice a month allotment of grass-finished beef in the form of a small burger, or modest portions of savory stew, or spicy chili, the climate scientists have been doing their work. They’ve recently discovered that, from a global warming perspective, so called sustainable and humanely raised pasture reared beef is no better. In fact, it’s worse.

This story in Science News details the findings revealed during a recent panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia said that greenhouse gas emissions for grass-finished livestock are roughly 50% higher than for grain-finished livestock. Wait, really?

Apparently cows that are fed grass throughout their lives simply eat more. So when you raise cows on pasture, you’re adding more inputs into an already inefficient production system. Pelletier’s research also shows that intensive pasture management, fertilization and renovation cause emissions of their own. And of course, pasture requires more land area (and sometimes deforestation) than CAFOs. I think what we are seeing here is that grass-finished beef is now big business. Due, no doubt, to the demand caused by books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma, we’re seeing grass-finished beef that more closely resembles factory farming than either Pollan or the grass farming hero of his book, Joel Salatin, ever intended. Turns out the Sierra Club, in a prescient piece from 2004, asked if grass-fed beef was merely a diversion from the reality that beef production, no matter much we might want it to be different, is the most inefficient way to raise food.

So what’s a conscious eater to do? With this new information chipping away at my meat-eating philosophy, I think I’ll have to take these new thoughts and ponder them carefully over a lunch of lentils and rice (with lots of caramelized onions). For further reading on the subject check out this piece in Living Green Magazine.

Photo: TerData

Anyone who has had the pleasure of reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is familiar with Joel Salatin, a self-described “grass farmer” and owner of Polyface Farm in Virginia. The end product of Salatin’s farm is meat (and eggs), but the production process bears little resemblance to the standard American livestock ranch. Salatin’s cattle rotate between “salad bars”—pastureland with an unusually high level of plant diversity—leaving in their wake a field of manure that Salatin’s chickens and turkeys then make their way through, turning droppings into compost with their beaks and claws. Pigs nudge past in the chickens’ footsteps, aerating the soil with their snouts and hooves. This inter-species cooperation keeps Polyface pastures in a state of continuous, rich regrowth, and makes for delicious, naturally-raised beef and poultry.

I was fortunate to see Joel Salatin speak in Marin last winter. The presentation was organized by my favorite meat producer, Marin Sun Farms, to benefit The Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association. The event fell on a particularly stormy night in Marin County, and the group of us who braved the rain to hear Salatin arrived at the Marin Civic Center to find the power out, but the evening’s hosts unruffled. We feasted in the dark on Rocky Mountain oysters, roasted beet and goat cheese salad, and spare ribs, and were treated to a presentation by Salatin so inspiring and engaging that I forgot all about the weather.

Salatin’s dedication and love for his animals, the land, and his customers is apparent in his every word. He describes the structure of Polyface and the role of each animal in the operation’s success with incredible zeal and deep understanding. Without a trace of pesticides or a kernal of industrial feed, he runs a business that rivals many commercial ranches. But despite what seems like potential for massive growth, Salatin remains dedicated to keeping his operation hyper-local, selling his goods only to consumers in the Virginia and Maryland region (and managing to keep the prices reasonable).

He is forthright in his disdain for the centralized American food system, as well as what he perceives as a compromising federal organic standard that now favors large industrial producers who can’t achieve the level of care or quality that a small farm can. At the end of the day, though, Salatin’s message is not a criticism of government or agribusiness so much as it is a moving and compelling story of family farm now in its third generation. It is also evidence of the fact that nature, when allowed to function without intervention, is a supportive and successful system of farming unto itself.

We are fortunate to have Joel Salatin returning to the Bay Area for a special presentation at Slow Food Nation. Please join Slow Food Madera on Monday, September 1 from 2:00 – 4:00 pm for an afternoon with Joel Salatin and Jerry Brunetti, an authority on the correlations between soil, plant, animal, and human nutrition.

To purchase tickets please visit www.brownpapertickets.com or call 209.874.1309 or 559.706.9552. $20 general and $10 student.

Images courtesy of FatMandy and tj.blackwell.