A New York Times article out today highlights a 3-decade nutrition study comparing grass-fed beef to grain-fed beef.

From the article:

Beef from grass-fed animals has lower levels of unhealthy fats and higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are better for cardiovascular health. Grass-fed beef also has lower levels of dietary cholesterol and offers more vitamins A and E as well as antioxidants. The study found that meat from animals raised entirely on grass also had about twice the levels of conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, isomers, which may have cancer fighting properties and lower the risk of diabetes and other health problems.

The study itself can be found in the latest Nutrition Journal.

A while back we made contact with a woman who grew up on our property in the 1950s.  Renee was kind enough to share some pictures, and I’ve finally gotten around to scanning a couple of them, as well as found the approximate point that they were taken from in order to do a photopoint comparison.  While I was doing that, I tracked down a couple of pictures that we’d taken early in our tenure here, for further comparison.
(click them all, preferably in a new tab/window, for the full view)

This was taken in March 2003 from a ladder near a spot where the laying hens had just moved from.  Note the small green patches to the left of the English Hawthorne in the midground…

and this was taken in Feb 2010 (but without a ladder).  The knee high firs are looking pretty good.

This was from the same spot as before, on the ladder in March 2003, now looking east.

and in Feb 2010

Here’s a shot looking SE, up the “Low Pass” of Old Moore’s valley road

and here’s the shot from Feb 2010 from my guesstimate as to where it was taken. A lot more trees in the valley these days.

and a 50’s-era shot to the south of South Moore’s Valley.

and the closest approximation to the location.

It’s neat to see how a landscape can change, both in under a decade, and then over the decades.

While I’ve been wanting to do this post for a while, what finally sparked me to get it all organized was this article in the local paper by a local historian. The money quote:

Puckerville, in Moore’s Valley area, tried also to become a town. In the late 1880s and ’90s, Puckerville items in Yamhill County newspapers reported talk of a new store “in our berg,” the organizing of a literary society, and this confident item: “Puckerville has more get up and go than any other town its size in Yamhill County.” But Puckerville’s “get up and go” never “got up and grew.”

It looks like my next historical investigation will be finding out where this Puckerville town was. Moore’s Valley is a very small place, so it can’t have been more than a few miles from us, but I haven’t heard anything about a town site around here. Add it to my list…

As the last post indicated, food security is a pretty compelling issue in the US, and the Northwest in particular. For a state that is awash in good farmland with which to grow enough food to feed all of us, a series of socioeconomic and cultural conditions prevents the food from getting from where it’s grown to where it needs to be. The Oregon Food Bank is an organization that has been on the front lines of this issue, and are doing great work to keep families fed. Despite their work, Oregon ranks second in the nation in food insecure families

Scrape together some change and drop them some at the link below.

Via Resilience Science, who got it from Edible Geography(with excellent commentary) comes a new project of the USDA…the Food Environment Atlas.

http://maps.ers.usda.gov/FoodAtlas/

It’s a pretty fascinating tool…pounds of meat consumed per capita per year, access to grocery stores, WIC redemptions (pictured), and farmer’s markets are available down to the county level. We spent a good chunk of the evening playing around with it. It’s a good lead-in to Blog for Food month

The American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman gave the keynote address at a Farm Bureau conference in Seattle earlier this week. The text of his speech is here.

Wow. Talk about being divisive. It seems to me that the FB Prez just issued a call to arms (literally?) for Farm Bureau members. Apparently those of us promoting alternative agriculture are now two-faced “adversaries” and “extremists” hell bent on destroying all those nice salt of the earth farm families who are just doing their darned-est to feed the world. Oh yes, and we’re working on our “elitist power grab”. (Because there is so much money and power to be gained through farming…duh!) Oh, and did you catch that we are apparently morally bankrupt because we dare to question whether industrial agriculture methods are really the best way to feed the world?

Of course, the Farm Bureau is doing precisely what they are accusing us of doing: dividing farmers by trying to scare its members into thinking that their way of life is being oppressed by people who are actually on their side.

This reminds me of what happened here in the NW during the collapse of the logging industry. The reality was that logging at current levels was not sustainable, but rather than admit that the system was flawed, it was easier and more convenient to blame environmentalists for the collapse in the timber industry. This “blame the messenger” mentality is useful in setting the stage for the “us vs. them” debate.

“…The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”

Again, Stillman is actually accusing us of something of which his industry is guilty. Big Ag is the “elitist” group… they are the ones who like our ag system the way it is: run by an exclusive group of industry heads and lobbyists, with hardly any money trickling down to the people who actually grow the food. The spirit behind alternative agriculture is actually the opposite of elite: it’s egalitarian (which means that it’s based on a “belief in equal economic, social, political and civil rights for all people”).

No, this labeling of alternative agriculture as “elitist” is simply industrial ag proponents trying to frame the debate. Their frame looks like this: “Alternative ag proponents don’t carry about feeding the hungry… they just want their $8 tomatoes and fancy foods. They don’t care if the price of food is too expensive for some people. We actually care about feeding the poor, and through technology, we can do so.”

As someone in the alternative ag movement, I would frame our position this way: “We want our food to be safe, healthy and nutritious. We want all farmers and farm workers to make a living wage. We want the earth to be utilized in a way that maintains and enhances its ability to produce food indefinitely. We want all people everywhere to have the ability to purchase and/or produce food that is nutritious and affordable.”

Obviously, those sentiments are more egalitarian than elitist. And I’m not sure exactly what power we’re supposedly grabbing? Is it the consumer dollars that are being spent directly on food at farmers’ markets and in CSAs? Are we supposed to feel guilty that so many young people are excited about making a living by growing food and selling that food directly to customers?

“Our adversaries are skillful at taking advantage of our politeness. Publicly, they call for friendly dialogue while privately their tactics are far from that.”

Peronally, I’m unclear about these tactics of which he speaks. Too bad he doesn’t cite any examples. Maybe I’ll try to come up with some…

Let’s see, is it that we’re working with government agencies and non-profits to help low-income families get access to fresh, healthy foods? Is it that we’re speaking out about the epidemic of childhood obesity? Is it that we’re talking about the connections between diet and health? Is it that we’re buying farmland and converting it to organic acreage? Is it that we’re encouraging the increase in the number of local farmers’ markets around the country? Or maybe that we’re forming work groups to talk about how to navigate a bureaucracy with regulations that are based on the industrial ag system? Or that we’re tired of hearing about food recalls every other week? Or perhaps just that we’re here, and we don’t seem to be going away?

Make no mistake… this should not be an “us” vs “them” debate. Alternative ag proponents are on the same side as the farmers, even those in the Farm Bureau. In fact, many of us are farmers. (And some of us are in the Farm Bureau!) And we are all consumers of food.

No, this “you’re either with us or against us” mentality is being promulgated by the Industrial Ag executives and shareholders who feel their bottom line being threatened by the integrity, ingenuity and wisdom of a growing movement of people who want safe and healthy food. Big Ag – and yes, I’m using labels since they fit – wants people to believe that it’s all just about happy chickens and fancy tomatoes for us.

Perhaps we are guilty of a power grab. We do want it all… happy chickens (and cows!), happy consumers, and happy farmers.

I wish I had that tractor for the 3500 trees that we planted a few years ago

Extreme Tree Planting – Trees for Earth from Peter Hill on Vimeo.

Allan Savory of the Holistic Management Institute spoke recently in Ireland…the full video sat in my browser for a couple of weeks until the holiday madness subsided. Things have calmed down a bit, finally. Here’s an exerpted version

Allan Savory – EXTRACTS – Keeping Cattle: cause or cure for climate crisis? from Feasta on Vimeo.

Some thoughts and observations on it….

Improving our pastures could be a very fast, energy intensive, and expensive proposition, or we could take the gradual, improvement of management approach. Being fundamentally frugal when having to deal with a decent-sized acreage, we’ve gone the gradual approach. In our tenure here, we’ve seen a large increase in the presence of “good” forage grasses, along with vetch and subclover (soil building legumes), with a decline in the weedy annuals that dominated the pastures when we got here.

Marks & Spencer (a high-end UK retailer) spent £200million to take 100,000 cars off the road…in order to reach that level of effect, a 12acre grass fire burning for 15mins will offset all of those cars and money (1.5 acre fire puts out more pollutants than 4000 cars per second). Our seasonally dry climate evolved to burn every few years, and I’d like to include fire in our management at some point, but notwithstanding the conflagration danger, the pollution that it will spew, along with the volatilization of so much of our soil nutrients, makes me think that it’ll be something that we’ll have to pass on.

For the folks who really want to geek out on Holistic Management from the mouth of the prophet, click here for the hour long lecture. It’s a bit dry at the start, but totally worth the time.

(via)

Thanks to Karen for tipping me off about an article about the link between drug-resistant bacteria and animals fed antibiotics. Article here.

The article talks about how the rise of (unnecessary) antibiotics use in animals is leading to drug-resistant infections. For readers who aren’t already aware of this, most of the cows, pigs, and chicken raised for meat in this country are routinely fed antibiotics, not because they are sick, but as a preventative measure because of the close quarters to which they are confined.

Now, we’ve known for a while that using antibiotics when they are not needed is not a good thing… the more they are used, the more likely that bacteria will evolve that are resistant, and the less effective the antibiotics will be in the future. And small farms like ours do not use prophylactic antibiotics… instead, we manage our animals for optimal health.

One of the hog farmers in the article argues customers don’t care about economics of meat production, and just want the $1.69 pork chops for their dinner table.

Antibiotics are a crucial part of Rowles’ business, speeding growth and warding off disease.

“Now the public doesn’t see that,” he said. “They’re only concerned about resistance, and they don’t care about economics because, ‘As long as I can buy a pork chop for a buck 69 a pound, I really don’t care.’ But we live in a world where you have to consider economics in the decision-making process of what we do.”

Well, of course economics are part of any business, including agriculture. However, giving antibiotics to healthy animals may make the meat cheaper in the store, but what about all the costs involved with treating antibiotic-resistant infections? Even if they aren’t included in the per lb price, we still pay it somehow. And I’ll bet if more people understood the link between rampant, unnecessary use of antibiotics in the food supply, and the spread of illnesses such as antibiotic-resistant staph infections, they might chose to pay a little more for their pork.

In the article, it’s noted that Big Ag and Big Pharma have spent millions of dollars this year alone fighting legislation to limit the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals. Their argument is partially the Big Brother one… “how dare The Government tell us how to raise our food?”. Let’s see… we have traffic laws because people can’t be counted on to drive safely without them. And we have government rules about food safety because companies driven primarily by the bottom line can’t be counted on to produce safe food. I don’t generally have a problem with that. (Although I do have a problem when a grocers’ association wants additional regulations on farmers’ markets just because they don’t like the competition, but that’s a whole other post.)

And they (Big Ag/Pharm) also say that (factory farming) is too complicated for government regulations.

Farmers and drugmakers are battling back. Pharmaceutical companies have spent $135 million lobbying so far this year, and agribusiness companies another $70 million, on a handful of issues including fighting the proposed new limits. Opponents, many from farm states, say Slaughter’s law is misguided.

“Chaos will ensue,” said Kansas Republican Congressman Jerry Moran. “The cultivation of crops and the production of food animals is an immensely complex endeavor involving a vast range of processes. We raise a multitude of crops and livestock in numerous regions, using various production methods. Imagine if the government is allowed to dictate how all of that is done.”

Really? Is it so complicated to have a rule that says that antibiotics shouldn’t be used unless animals are sick? I don’t think so…

The truth is that Big Ag and Big Pharm are invested in the status quo… of course they don’t want change because change can be difficult, and costly.

It’s logical that Big Pharma is probably driving the use of antibiotics. If farmers stop using their drugs, they’ll lose a lot of revenue. But it seems to me that farmers could be better off if they changed their practices. Just like the hog farmers in the article, many farmers could raise fewer animals, do it better on pasture and with fewer inputs, have improved quality of life for the animals, and receive more income per animal. It’s not impossible- it just requires a shift in perception and in the farm’s vision.

And if there was no more 1.69 antibiotic-laced meat available in the supermarkets, would that really be a problem?

(note: I edited this post for clarity.)

Gene Logsden has a good post up about the piles of corn that end up in the midwest at the end of harvest season. Oh, my aching HFCS.

With the Copenhagen climate talks stuttering along, it seems like past time to throw in some quick comments

The effect of livestock on greenhouse gas emissions are often overrated, if not entirely exaggerated

Pasture is part of the solution to the carbon issue

Some farms are doing it right

And the systems exist to fix the problem

OK, seriously, I need to post more often.