Grassfed
Beef in the News:
“Grass-fed
Beef Clearly Superior”, says new German Study”: Results
showed that meat from cattle raised on pasture had
much healthier fats. Researchers concluded that
grassfed meat is “clearly superior” and
“remarkably beneficial”. They stated that
grass-fed meat “should be promoted as an important
part of a healthy balanced diet.” (Journal
of Agriculture and Food chemistry, June 2008)
Grassfed
Beef Market Growing: “The
market potential for grassfed beef is 20-25 percent
of the total American beef market, or about $15 to
$20 billion in annual retail sales,” said Allen
Williams of Tallgrass Beef Company at a recent
conference in
Nebraska
. According to Williams, about 2,000
U.S.
producers
will market grassfed beef this year, worth nearly
$350 million in retail sales. Williams
listed four top challenges for the grassfed beef
industry:
1.
Proper cattle genetics.
2.
The skill set necessary to manage forage
and
cattle in a 367-day feeding situation.
3.
Capturing economies of scale.
4.
Overall development of infrastructure to
process
and distribute grassfed beef.
(IANR
News Service October 11, 2008)
USDA-FSIS
Seeks Comments on Meat labeling Claims: Deadline
for comments is Nov 14th. To comment, see the
Federal Register at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E824191.htm,
email aga@americangrassfed.org or call
877-774-7277.
USDA
Sets New Organic Pasture Rules: Advocates
say the USDA actually got
this one right. According to Kathie Arnold, a
New York
State
organic
dairy farmer, “This
draft rule provides specific language needed for
enforcement of one of the central tenets
of organically produces livestock — that organic
livestock spend a considerable part of their lives
in their natural pasture habitat and receive a
significant portion of their food from fresh, green,
growing pasture.” A
deeper discussion of the pasture dispute can be
found in Samuel Fromartz’s book “Organic Inc:
Natural Foods and How They Grew.” He blogs at http://www.chewswise.com Continued
on page 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWGLA
/ Forage For Thought Fall 2008 Page 2
GO
MOBILE
!
By
Laurie Bower
The
mobile “matanza” in
Taos
is
alive and well. Owned and managed by the Taos
Community Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC)
and managed by Gilbert Suazo of Taos Pueblo, New
Mexico’s first mobile livestock slaughter unit
services within an approximate 100-mile radius of
Taos
,
NM
(although
they cannot currently cross out of state) and is one
of just five in the
US
. USDA certified slaughter and processing services
are available for beef, pork, lamb, goat and bison,
with enough cooler capacity to hang up to 16 beef
carcasses.
Benefits
of “going mobile” include reduced stress on the
animals, the transport fuel and valuable time that
the farmer/rancher saves and a tastier final product
for the consumer. There is a one time fee of
$80/head for beef, $40/head for pork, $26/head for
lamb/goats and $90.head for bison. To
cut and wrap in paper is .45/lb and vacuum sealingis
.60/lb. Once
the carcasses are hung, the truck heads back to
TCEDC in
Taos
, where they are transferred to a permanent facility
where they can be dry-aged and processed. TCEDC also
maintains a truck to transport refrigerated goods to
Santa Fe
, which can be arranged for an additional fee. TCEDC
also has a fully equipped and certified “community
kitchen” where individuals and organizations can
process food items.
The
mobile matanzas/abattoirs concept has received
increased interest recently due to the humane animal
handling process and economic benefits to ranchers
and farmers who do not have adequate nearby
processing facilities. For more information on this
unique alternative to shipping live animals hundreds
of miles for processing, call manager Gilbert Suazo
at 575-779-3661(cell) or 575-758-8731(office).
Additional information and a full brochure are also
available at http://www.tcedc.org/Programs/MobileLivestockSlaughterUnit/tabid/858/Default.aspx
**
In need of a workshop or tasting in your area to
help promote grass-fed livestock or help ranchers
get started providing grass-fed livestock? Give us a
call we are here to help you! SWGLA 505.231.3467 or
visit our website at www.swgla.org
BOOK
REVIEW: Revolution
on the Range: The Rise of a New Ranch in
the American West, by Courtney White
Publisher's
WeeklyReview:
"In
a time when environmental reporting has become
justifiably gloomy, this book is a refreshing breath
of pragmatic optimism. Environmentalist White
highlights quirky, visionary individuals and their
innovative methods to improve the quality of the
ranges and mountains of the West, such as biologist
Bill Zeedyk, who restores riparian areas and water
tables using sticks and rocks to simply and cheaply
mimic a creek's natural meandering, and activist Dan
Dagget, who has been able to unite environmentalists
and ranchers by focusing on common goals (open
space, wildlife, restored streams). White promotes
implementation of the "New Ranch,"
operating "on the
principle that the natural processes that sustain
wildlife habitat, biological diversity and
functioning watersheds are the same processes that
make land productive for livestock... where erosion
has diminished, where streams and springs, once dry,
now flow, where wildlife is more abundant, and where
landowners are more profitable as a result." White's
vision of stewardship, openness to new ideas, giving
as well as taking, and flexibility will inspire
anyone who loves humanity or the great
outdoors." To
purchase this book, order at
www.quiviracoalition.org or call 505-820-2544.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWGLA
/ Forage For Thought Fall 2008
Page 3
Mission
Statement: “SWGLA
is an alliance of producers, land managers,
conservationists and researchers that promotes and
markets grass-fed livestock products through applied
research, educations and cooperation in order to
improve human, ecological, social and animal
health.”
Where’s
the (
New Mexico
) (Grassfed) Beef?
By
Laurie Bower
Two
major reports were released late this summer
concerning beef and ranching in
New Mexico
, each with a different approach and conclusions.
One report titled “Adding Value to the New Mexico
Beef Industry” was conducted by
New Mexico
State
University
and
pertained to the NM beef industry as a whole.
Another report titled “Study of Grass Fed Beef
as a Value Chain in North Central New Mexico and the
San LuisValley
,
Colorado
” was conducted by AIS Development, LLC (Cecilia
Ciepiela and Steve Warshawer.) This report
concerned, as the title suggests, an evaluation of
current markets and opportunities for grassfed beef
production, distribution and consumption in the
Northern New Mexico
area.
The
findings from both of these reports were presented
at a series of community outreach meetings
throughout
New Mexico
this
fall. SWGLA members, producers/local ranchers and
other concerned parties attended these meetings,
providing important feedback concerning
the interests of grassfed/natural beef producers. In
their conclusion and recommendations, the statewide
beef study concluded that “A state or regional
beef branding
program combined with a certification process would
be the most viable option for adding value to the
New Mexico
beef
market.” The conclusion further stated, “There
is potential for the addition of natural, lean and
humanely grown beef products” but that “a few
obstacles do exist…” These obstacles include the
ability to maintain a consistent year-round, high
quality supply of product (beef) and the necessity
for producers to cooperate with each other on a
variety of levels. Although a statewide grassfed
beef program was considered, it was ruled out due to
concerns that “producers would struggle to
convince the traditional beef consumer to purchase
grass fed beef…”
The
grassfed study, on the other hand, was focused on
establishing specific recommendations for the
grassfed portion of the
Northern NM
beef
industry. The study concluded that there are three
options for producers and stakeholders: 1) Small
scale direct marketing for producers who do not want
to expand beyond 10-20 animalsfinished each fall. 2)
Participate as a supplier to existing “value
chains” such as Country Natural Beef and 3) Find a
buyer serving the local regional market who will buy
the whole carcass and work with a group of producers
to develop a local (
New Mexico
) value chain, along the lines of the partnership
between Polyface farms with Chipotle Restaurants.
Additional recommendations concerned developing a
“line” of natural beef products, establishing
standards for breeds and feeds, developing alliances
with producers in surrounding area to expand the
supply base and redefine “local” as falling
within a 4-hour drive time, to include
Santa Fe
and
Albuquerque
. A series of “proposed interventions” were also
presented in the report, which included a variety of
activities that
could
be implemented by the public/donor sector to
facilitate private sector development.
An
enormous amount of time, thought and funding has
been invested in these reports. They both provide
valuableinformation for evaluating our next best
steps toward a more viable future for all involved
in the production, distribution and consumption of
New Mexico Beef. This month, SWGLA will play an
active role in the strategic planning that is now
needed to gather stakeholders and develop new
strategies for 2009 and beyond. On November 6th,
stakeholders in the NM local beef industry
gathered in
Santa Fe
to
draft new strategies, and on November 18-19, SWGLA
representatives will attend a 2-day Strategic
Planning Summit in
Albuquerque
as
part of the New Mexico Beef Initiative. For
a copy of one or both of these reports, contact
SWGLA at info@swgla.org or by calling
505-231-3467. Please include either email or
mailing address.
SWGLA
/ Forage For Thought Fall 2008
Page 4
Age
of Maturity for Criollo Heifers
By
Ed L. Fredrickson
Increasing
fuel and feed supplementation costs along with the
reallocation of water from agriculture to urban uses
will alter beef production throughout the western
United States
. One response is to use beef cattle breeds that
better match nutritionally challenging environments
common to the West and can sustain themselves
without expensive supplemental feeds. Another option
is to minimize transportation costs and increase
the value of each animal by targeting regional
markets.
At the USDA’s
Jornada
Experimental
Range
we
are seeking to indentify arid land adapted breeds
that help producers remain profitable while adapting
to these changing conditions. Our
present focus is the Spanish Criollo cattle that
first came to the New World on
Columbus
’s second voyage in 1493. Shortly after their
introduction to
Mexico
in
1521, large herds of these prolific animals occupied
central
Mexico
and
many coastal regions. In 1598, Criollo cattle were
introduced to present day New Mexico and remained
the dominant breed until the mid to late 1800’s
when British investors dominated the
U.S.
livestock
industry. Because
of their 400 years of residency, Criollo cattle are
likely to be the most adapted cattle to Southwestern
conditions available. One
trait we feel is important for regional beef
production systems is early maturity. Future
conditions should favor animals that can reach
maturity during the short period when forage quality
and quantity are sufficient for growth.
In
a two year study, graduate student Sergio Valverde
with the help of reproductive physiologist Dr. Dean
Hawkins measured the onset of puberty in Criollo and
Angus-Hereford crossbred heifers. In 2006, 7 Criollo
and 5 crossbred heifers were used
to determine length of the estrous cycle. Heifers
grazed the same pasture during the study with free
access to water and mineral supplement. Blood
samples were collected twice weekly both years. In
2007, 15 Criollo and 15 crossbred heifers were used
to determine age at puberty and length of the
estrous cycle. During both years the dams of the
crossbred heifers were supplemented, but the dams of
the Criollo heifers were not. Initially,
body weights in both 2006 and 2007 were greater for
crossbred heifers when compared to Criollo heifers
(251.7 and 166.4 ± 12.9 kg; 236.2 and 158.8 ± 4.7
kg, respectively). In 2006, weight gains did not
differ between breeds (80.5 and 71.1 ± 4.4 kg for
crossbred and Criollo heifers, respectively). In
2007, crossbred heifers gained more than Criollo
heifers (128.2 and 91.2 ± 4.1 kg, respectively). In
2007, body weight at puberty
was greater for crossbred heifers than Criollo
heifers (323.8 and 213.9 ± 6.6 kg, respectively). However,
Criollo heifers tended to reach puberty earlier than
crossbred heifers (363.5 and 376.7 ± 6.3 days,
respectively) with two crossbred heifers not
reaching puberty during the study. Estrous cycle
length in crossbred and Criollo heifers in both 2006
and 2007 did not differ (18 and 19 ± 1 days; 18 and
19 ± 1 days, respectively).
This
study suggests that Criollo heifers reach puberty
earlier than British breeds with differences being
detected during two very good forage years.
Breed differences would likely be greater during
less favorable conditions typical of the region.
Sergio’s study supports the idea that
New Mexico
’s true heritage breed, Criollo cattle, may also
be a profitable part of
New Mexico
’s future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWGLA
/ Forage For Thought Fall 2008
Page 5
MEMBERS’
VOICE
Cut
government link to the food chain
by
Paul Schwennesen, Letter
published in the Tucson Citizen June 25, 2008
A
column by Mark Kimble ("A
regulatory beef" on Jan. 10)
highlighted a growing dispute between the Pima
County Health Department and farmers' markets. He
suggested government was merely a "step
behind" in regulating farmers markets, and that
the two sides were just a handshake away from an
equitable arrangement to save
Tucson
's hapless residents from unregulated food. Well,
the tables have turned. Gov. Janet Napolitano has
now signed into law an amendment to an exemption
that allows food producers to sell their products
without the interference and onerous licensing fees
the Health Department has been demanding.
The
new law reads, in part: "The producers of food
products on agricultural lands . . . shall never
under any pretext be denied or restricted the right
to sell and dispose of their products . . . No tax,
license or fee shall be imposed, levied upon,
demanded or collected from a producer for a sale of
a food product." This law, which clarifies the
definition of "food" (to now include
you'll be glad to know, beef and lamb) is a
tremendous boon to the small-scale agricultural
producer as well as the tens of thousands of
consumers looking for alternatives to the industrial
food chain.
While
Kimble could not have known that the county's
regulatory role would be so significantly reduced,
his comments nevertheless betray a misplaced faith
in the role of government protection on our dinner
plate. A large, obtrusive bureaucracy in the food
supply presents two distinct problems: It tends to
reduce food quality by eliminating personal
accountability from producer and consumer. And
it becomes a significant, often insurmountable
barrier to entry by new producers, stifling healthy
competition and economic liberty.
What's
wrong with having the government safeguard our food
supply? It sounds eminently reasonable to have a
trained, unbiased authority keeping unscrupulous
producers from poisoning their clientele. The
problem is, it doesn't work. Unscrupulous or
negligent producers poison us all the time! How many
millions of pounds of ground beef have been recalled
this year? Who plans to eat raw tomatoes anytime
soon? The standard governmental reply is,
"Imagine how much worse it would be without
government safeguards!" This misses the point.
As a producer with a raft of bureaucratic
"protections" between you and the
consumer, there is little or no incentive to create
a purer product than your competition because a
government agency has "volunteered" to
take the heat for you, should anything go awry. In
effect, the incentive among producers is to win the
race toward the bottom rung, where they can most
cheaply and easily meet the minimum standard. If a
producer's personal reputation and livelihood were
at stake every time a consumer purchased his
product, his incentives would be properly placed,
and he would continually strive for better and
better quality, knowing the competition was doing
the same.
Moreover,
government intervention in the food industry stifles
new entrants with an immense amount
of regulation, licensing and fees. This reduces
competition and favors larger and larger industrial
nodes of production. In turn, these larger
production centers grow farther and farther from
their clientele, exacerbating the anonymity that
makes cutting corners an acceptable practice. Finally,
customers become the unwitting accomplices in a
centralized food system. We have come to expect food
choice to be a price-based activity alone. We place
undue reliance on labels and certification; we have
forgotten how to seek (and thereby encourage)
superior quality in our food. We are what we eat,
the saying goes. If what we eat is an overregulated,
dislocated shadow of what food once was, what does
that make us?
Arizona
should be commended for empowering, if even in a
small way, the vital relationship between producers
and consumers, and of limiting central authority in
our food choices. Government isn't just a "step
behind." It shouldn't even be in the race. Paul
and Sarah Schwennesen own the Double Check Ranch
near Winkelman,www.doublecheckranch.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWGLA
/ Forage For Thought Fall 2008 Page 6
JX
CATTLE COMPANY, LLC
Tom
and Mimi
Sidwell Tucumcari
,
NM
Tom
and Mimi Sidwell together run Longhorn cows and
Charolais bulls on their 7,000-acre ranch in eastern
New Mexico
. JX Ranch is located 25 miles south of Tucumcari,
along the rugged Caprock which traverses the ranch.
This fall they started selling lean
natural beef to
individuals, who may opt to purchase a whole beef, a
half or a quarter of a beef. The animals are born
and raised on the ranch, have never received any
antibiotics,
growth-hormones
or animal by-products whatsoever and remain on
native pasture until ready for processing, at which
time they are transported to Fort Sumner Processing
where the customer picks up the meat after 2 – 3
weeks of dry-ageing.
Tom
and Mimi are impressed with the hardiness and
thriftiness of these Longhorn cows,
especially in a drought. “Most other breeds of
cattle would have gone down-hill in the last three
years when we received none to marginal rain, but
these cows just hustled and came out of it like a
shining rose. This year we’ve been blessed with
good rains, and lots of grass. The Longhorn also
seem to be very disease and insect resistant, and we don’t
use any chemicals or insecticides on the cattle”. The
herd is rotated through the ranch’s many pastures
frequently, using holistic range management
practices. Tom and Mimi use horses when moving the
cattle, working them slowly and quietly in a
no-stress manner. “They are a pleasure to be
around, and they are good mommas”.
From
April till November, they also take in up to 4
guests at a time, wishing to experience the daily
life on a cattle ranch. Guests need to have some
riding experience, as they will tag along in the
every-day activities on the ranch. This has helped
see the ranch through some tough times, and Tom and
Mimi enjoy getting to meet people from all walks of
life, and from all parts of the world.