Probably 200 bison forded that stream as they moved to new grazing lands, and witnessing it was an unparalleled experience. Despite their powerful size, bison are graceful creatures and move almost daintily, but with speed and purpose. And they really do thunder.

In 1800, it was estimated that more than 40 million bison roamed the United States; by 1900, after an unprecedented and sustained massacre, fewer than 600 bison remained. Most of the bison you see today are descendents of a ragtag group of several dozen bison who had been saved by conservationists dedicated to their survival.

Historically, bison were the lifeblood of a number of Native American tribes, providing meat, skins, and other important supplies.  Indeed, bison meat has fed humans for thousands of years.  Six years ago was the first time I saw bison being farmed for meat. The animals were being raised on 13,000 acres in Texas and were roaming their homelands in family groups, just as nature intended. They were carefully overseen by skilled stockmen who knew that the best management for these magnificent creatures was to ensure that they had the space and freedom to utilize the land to their own advantage. The animals had no parasites and were totally in harmony with their environment – their only feed was grass and forage, the true and proper diet of a ruminant. At slaughter, selected animals, carefully chosen to be the least disruptive to herd structure, were taken for meat with a single, immediately fatal shot delivered under the supervision of the USDA inspector.

Shortly thereafter I saw the antithesis of that thoughtful, holistic system as I walked among bison on feedlots. Bison are wild animals; they have not been domesticated by man like cattle and sheep. That day, I saw thousands of these undomesticated animals react as their natural behavior dictated they should to any threat. They stood unmoving in defensive circles. When they did move, only to eat and drink, the closely packed feedlot left them unable to fight off any parasitic challenges and many required pharmaceutical treatments. They were fed an unnatural corn- and grain-based diet that is not only alien to them but which leads to unbalanced conditions in their digestive systems, which then acts as a haven for E. Coli O157:H7.  They looked neither strong nor majestic, but confused and defeated.

Must we continue to dominate and control and force our will on everything we see and touch? Must we now subject bison—wild animals—to a system that has already proven inhumane and unsafe?

Given the documented problems with the feedlot system, I wasn’t surprised to read about the recall of bison meat due to E. Coli that has caused the illness of five people in Colorado and one in New York. Although Rocky Mountain Natural Meat (the processor) and the retailers who stocked the product (including some well-known ones)seem to want you to believe their bison is a ”natural” product, in fact, what consumers were buying was feedlot meat with the inherent risks that such production has been shown to  generate.

Bison meat has often been promoted as the healthy alternative to beef. It has a far lower fat content than beef – 5 to 7 percent for bison compared with 25 to 30 percent for beef – and higher protein content. Before this recall most people would have thought of bison as a safe, healthy meat from animals roaming the ranges of the West. We can now see all too well that this isn’t the case.

The only reason to force these stately animals into confinement is to try to speed up their growth so a few greedy ranchers can profit. But by their very nature these kings of the prairie need space to roam in order to fulfill their natural behaviors and keep them healthy. Why on earth would we want to change that? Big Ag’s “improvements” in genetics for chicken and pigs have done little but shorten the lives of the animals, weaken their skeletons, remove maternal traits that have led to cages, and breed the flavor out of them.

Knowing what we know now about our failed attempts to force domesticated animals into unnatural industrialized farming systems, do we seriously need to do the same to a wild animal?  Why on earth do we want to put bison in feedlots just to make it more like beef, particularly when one of the attributes of bison is its lean, light meaty flavor? Why would you want your bison burger to taste like a beef burger?

Aside from the inexplicable need to force feed bison to make them more like cattle, feedlot confinement has the same ill-effects on bison as it can have on cattle.  Which means the revolting acid-resistant E Coli O157:H7 has been found in bison meat. At least six people have fallen ill and one person has instigated proceedings against Rocky Mountain Natural Meats, the bison meat processor. As we have highlighted in previous blogs, the cause of this particularly virulent E. Coli is related to the inappropriate grain feeding of ruminants, creating an unnatural environment in their digestive systems that allows E. Coli to flourish. Bison fed on pasture or range and raised slowly produce lean, healthy meat, free from acid-resistant E. Coli.

As consumers we can vote with our dollar and end the bison feedlot industry before it destroys this noble species. We can refuse to buy bison from feedlots which may in fact be bad for our health as well as for the health and well being of the animals. If you want to play Russian roulette with E. Coli, buy feedlot beef.

If you feel as I do, buy bison only from herds that live and forage on pasture or range. Demand that your retailer stops selling meats that can kill.  If there is no market for feedlot bison then bison will stop being subjected to feedlots. Let’s not make another mistake that will imperil this magnificent beast.

Witherspoon, who played college ball at the University of Georgia, has been playing in the NFL since 2002, when he was drafted in the third round by the Carolina Panthers. In 2006, he signed with the St. Louis Rams, where he was named Team MVP in 2007. He played the 2009 season for the Philadelphia Eagles before being signed by the Tennessee Titans in March of 2010.

The quiet and somewhat solitary lifestyle of farming can seem at odds with Witherspoon’s day job of being a linebacker, a position where the job description is, basically, put yourself in the path of a really big and powerful player while he tries to run right through you. However, it’s the transition from the thunderous, bone-crushing ferocity of football to the lush green peace of Shire Gate Farm that Witherspoon values.  Shire Gate Farm is not just a business—it’s also a getaway for Witherspoon, his wife Rebecca and daughters Layne, Maya and Shaye. “Shire Gate is a total escape for us. It’s a place where my daughters and I can work with the animals and the land. I use the companionship of the animals and the beauty of the land to refocus myself after the demands of playing football. Shire Gate is our retreat from the world.”

Witherspoon purchased Shire Gate Farm in 2007 as a home for his Shire horses, Rocky and Simon.  As the farm expanded to include more horses, Witherspoon decided to turn Shire Gate into a working farm and added cattle. Intensive research led him to White Park cattle. He chose White Parks because they are docile, thrive in a grassfed environment and provide superior milk and meat. His research also led him to AWA and pasture-based farming. “I wanted Shire Gate Farm to be true to nature and true to the way things should be done,” Witherspoon says. “That means putting the welfare and care of the animals first.”

As a professional athlete in a highly physical and competitive sport, Witherspoon is especially aware of the health benefits of grassfed, high-welfare farming. “I want my kids, and all kids, to grow up in a way that is more in touch with the natural environment. My cattle are raised as nature intended, on grass, and aren’t fed growth hormones, antibiotics or other unnatural additives,” he says. “As a pro football player, I can’t take over-the-counter cold medicine without letting my trainer know about it. Why would I want my kids eating beef from cattle fed hormones or antibiotics?” Shire Gate Farm is duel certified by Animal Welfare Approved and the American Grassfed Association (AGA).

Raising his cattle according to AWA standards is how animal-lover Witherspoon shows his commitment to animal welfare on his farm. “AWA and I see eye-to-eye on how cattle should be raised. The great thing about the program is that it offers a wealth of information and provides access to people who can help me raise my herd and build my farm. There’s no way I can go wrong. We’re planning to expand to poultry, pork, and perhaps even lamb, and AWA has standards for each of these species. I know that AWA and AGA will work alongside me as Shire Gate grows.”

Animal Welfare Approved Program Director Andrew Gunther praises Witherspoon’s dedication to raising his animals with high-welfare standards. “When I visited Shire Gate with [American Grassfed Association President] Patricia Whisnant, it was clear he brings to his farm the same intense attention to detail and preparation he brings to the football field.” In addition to Witherspoon and his wife and daughters, his father, a former military officer, also resides at Shire Gate Farm.  According to Gunther, “It was clear this is not just an infatuation for Will, but a real working family farm that will grow and prosper.”

Ferocious on the field, Witherspoon is equally ferocious about the welfare of his animals. “When I decided to bring cattle and other animals on the farm, I jumped in quite readily and I decided if I’m going to do it, I’m going to do it right. AWA and AGA are helping me achieve that goal.”

Photo courtesy Donn Jones, Tennessee Titans

On May 27, 2010, AgriLife Communications posted a press release which appears to refute claims that grassfed beef is healthier than grainfed beef. But the shocking lack of academic rigor behind this seemingly important press release demonstrates to me exactly why people are losing their faith in science.

This press release, entitled “Study shows ground beef from grainfed cattle healthier than grassfed,” claims to highlight new research by Dr. Stephen Smith, a Professor of Meat Science at AgriLife Research, a member of the Texas A&M University System. The background is that Dr. Smith was paid by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to look at the potential effects of eating grassfed or grainfed beef on cholesterol levels.

As Dr. Smith’s report runs counter to many people’s understanding of grassfed beef and its potential health benefits, it’s not surprising that it gained widespread media coverage. Indeed, many websites and blogs have repeated the AgriLife press release word for word. At AWA, however, we don’t simply copy and paste our news stories. We make a point of ensuring that the information we provide is based on up-to-date, proven, peer-reviewed science or published reports. And as we have a large number of grassfed farmers in our program we felt that a report stating that beef from grainfed cattle was healthier than grassfed warranted further investigation.

As we do with all news items, we sought to confirm the authenticity of the report by returning to Dr. Smith’s original study and reviewing its findings. Unfortunately, in this instance, our technical team could not find any references for the reported study. So we contacted Dr. Smith directly on June 6, 2010 to request further details. As we didn’t get a response, we sent another e-mail to Dr. Smith on June 9, asking for further information–this time copying the report’s co-author, Dr. Rosemary Walzem. Again, no response.

Concerned that we were being ignored, on June 14 we contacted the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the Texas A&M University, asking for his help in resolving the issue. To our surprise, we received no reply to this letter either. Just to cover all bases, we contacted the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, which funded the work, to ask if they had a copy of the study. You guessed it: complete silence.

Then, curiously, just as the publication deadline for this blog passed, a letter arrived from Dr. Smith, addressed not directly to our technical team, but to “whom it may concern.” This letter was dated nine days after our first request, but not actually sent until 11 days after the first request and, interestingly, after our e-mail to the Dean.

There are several striking points about this response. Perhaps the most concerning is the fact that it was addressed “to whom it may concern.” Together with some of the other content, this clearly shows that we were not the only people chasing down the real facts of the matter. Other key points are just how many people we had to ask before we got a reply and, of course, the lack of any real weight to the final response. If, as Dr. Smith suggests, the report is heading for a peer review and publication in a recognized scientific journal then I know a couple of nutritionists who would love to review it.

In the letter itself, Dr. Smith refers to a previous piece of research, British Journal of Nutrition, 103:91-98, 2010, which is puzzling in so much as all the ten individuals involved in that study had high cholesterol before the work started, and the diet during and between the trials appears to have been unsupervised. In other words, apart from the few burgers a week that they were required to eat by the trial, there isn’t much detail on what else the ten people ate during the trial. And, yes, that wasn’t a typo: only TEN people took part in this earlier study. In any event, this previously published piece is not overly relevant to the fire storm caused by what appears to be the premature reporting of a study awaiting review.

So what’s the problem? Surely a report wouldn’t have been written and presented at conferences unless it had been reviewed and validated. Well, without seeing the full study we can’t tell you. But what we can tell you is that significant conclusions are being drawn – and publicized in the media – from a study that only included 27 people who ate burgers for only five weeks at a time. We contacted other researchers with expertise in carrying out nutritional trials and the bottom line is that this number of subjects simply isn’t enough to produce any meaningful results.

Aside from the issue of a very small sample size, there are also many unanswered questions about this supposed scientific research. The original AgriLife news release reports that the 27 volunteers ate five 115g burgers a week for each five week trial. Now, we don’t think it’s unrealistic to say that the individuals taking part in the trial probably ate other food as well during the five-week period – but what other food did they eat? Could this other food have affected the results of the blood tests? And what about the health status and initial cholesterol results of the volunteers? Were some of them particularly high or low? We just don’t know.

The press release states that the work was carried out because there was a lack of research on the health effects of grassfed versus grainfed beef. We would beg to differ on this point. Without this news report, and based on what is already published, we know that the science shows that grassfed products are far healthier for you than grainfed, as grassfed products contain higher levels of vitamin E and omega 3. Grassfed beef is also safer. As we have previously reported aside from the extra vitamins and omega 3, grassfed beef is unlikely to be carrying E coli 157 – sadly not something you can say of all grainfed, feedlot beef.

The title of this blog is “More Bad Science: Fact or Fiction” but at the moment we can’t even say if this report is science at all. At AWA we welcome all research that contributes to the debate around grassfed versus grainfed beef. But it must be credible research, not just fairy tale stuff.

Sorry guys, but it’s time to put up or shut up if you want consumers to believe your science. Make sure your science is unbiased, accurate and, in this case, that it actually exists. Maybe I don’t have a Ph.D in nutrition, but I have trusted friends who do, and I do have a healthy cynicism for deceit and spin. I look forward to reading this study that, according to Dr. Smith, is awaiting review and publication. But until then I’m afraid I’ll be sticking to what we already know, and which is backed up by peer reviewed, published science: grassfed beef really is better for you than grainfed. I hope all the pro-feedlot folks who naively promoted this unpublished, un-reviewed report with banner headlines will offer their grassfed friends an apology for not checking their sources – and will improve their journalistic practices in the future.

As I have said before, I believe that sound science is a key to the future, but only in the hands of ethical scientists. We need to expose these shameless media stunts and the bad science they promote. Only then will consumers once again have confidence in the many great and revered scientists who are working tirelessly to make the world a better, more sustainable place.

Chronology
Initial e-mail to Dr. Smith: June 6, 2010
Follow up e-mail to Dr. Smith and Dr. Walzem: June 9, 2010
E-mail to the Dean of Agricultural Sciences: June 14, 2010
E-mail to Bethany Shively, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: June 18, 2010
E-mail from Dr Smith: June 18, 2010

The land’s sole use will be for hay making. Bill is very excited about the opportunity to become the steward of the property because he says, “it will be a huge benefit to the local community. It’s going to be a completely sustainable local food system.” Stuart Family Farm already feeds 250-300 Connecticut families and many of them are living in Brookfield.

Bill wants to increase his farm’s herd in order to meet the demand of consumers wanting Animal Welfare Approved grass fed beef. In order to increase the herd, Bill knew they would have to feed the cattle hay in the winter months, but he is committed to doing all of this locally (Brookfield and Bridgewater are only 8 miles apart, very low on food mileage). Haying in Brookfield makes this possible while at the same time preserving and restoring local farmland. As Bill put it, “It’s a very good deal when you talk about local sustainable agriculture…The only energy we’ll be using is solar energy from the grass and the equipment to harvest the hay.”

The issue of environmental impact and meat production is a complicated one and open to misinterpretation and confusion. See our past blog, Beware of Bad Science. With my obvious interest in grassfed and pasture-raised production I am always looking to see what new evidence is being presented. After reading both pieces, however, I was left feeling rather disappointed.

These articles are interesting, but they are interesting for all the wrong reasons. While they appear to put forward a strong argument, with independent studies mentioned, if not always actually referenced, they actually expose the problems of scientific reductionism and a general lack of academic rigor.

Helene York’s piece does not make much of a distinction between beef production methods. According to her, from a global warming perspective, all beef is bad. One of her references is a 2006 study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” which compared industrially produced meat to a vegan diet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).  Eshel’s more recent article focuses on the alleged negative environmental impact of grassfed beef.

York’s contention is that beef is:

“The Hummer of foods—an excessive contributor to environmental ills including climate change, nitrogen blooms, pollution, and depletion of Midwestern aquifers—not to mention E. coli contamination that has sickened and scared thousands.”

Regular readers of our blogs will recognize that we too are aware of the environmental and E. coli risks of feedlot beef. But while it may not be obvious to York, it is clear to others that there is a world of difference between feedlot beef and pastured beef and the environmental, health and welfare implications of each system.

Dr. Eshel does recognize the difference between grassfed beef and feedlot beef but by his account grassfed comes out far worse than feedlot beef. I was pleased to see that Eshel understands that the meat of a “healthy thriving animal is clearly nutritionally superior to the biochemically compromised, microbiologically teeming ecosystem that is the bulk of the nation’s meat supply.” I was also pleased to read that, along with one or two farmers out there, Eshel is well aware of the unique ability of the ruminant to convert forage and other cellulose-rich foods into usable nutrients. As he says, “if it weren’t for the absorption of glucose liberated by bacteria mediated cellulose breakdown inside ruminant bodies, most of this energy would have bypassed the animal kingdom altogether.” So what is his problem with grassfed?

Well, when compared to meat from corn-fed cattle, Eshel argues that meat from grassfed cattle is more–not less–greenhouse gas intensive. He argues that grassfed animals emit two to four times as much methane (a potent greenhouse gas) compared to the more “efficient” corn and soya-based diet of feedlot cattle. This is because the non-forage diet is mostly simple sugars, which requires no rumination for digestion.

Eshel argues that the higher methane emissions of grassfed cattle, combined with the faster weight gain by feedlot animals, result in significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions per pound of meat by grassfed animals than by feedlot ones. He also argues that grazing animals produce “at most a quarter of the calories per acre typical plant based production systems do” and that, ultimately, “grass-feeding produces unnecessary low-quality calories at ostentatious environmental costs while displacing threatened wildlife.”

On face value, he makes a seemingly strong case. Grassfed cattle produce more methane than corn-fed cattle; they grow more slowly and are therefore more “inefficient” when compared to cattle fed a corn-based diet. As a result, they represent an inefficient use of land which could be used to grow corn for feedlot cattle systems.

However, there is one particularly big hole in Dr. Eshel’s argument – which is particularly surprising given that he was once a cattle farmer in Israel. This hole in the argument also applies to Helene York’s contention that there is little difference between grassfed and feedlot cattle. The point is this: while the grassfed cattle are busy munching the grass, the feedlot cattle are busy munching… corn and soya. This corn and soya is rather heavily reliant on regular applications of… nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals. And nitrogen fertilizers and other agrochemicals are produced using… you guessed it…fossil fuels.

According to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, a typical steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in its lifetime. Why? Because the corn we feed to our feedlot cattle requires artificial fertilizer and other agrochemicals, which require staggering amounts of fossil fuel energy to produce. And what about the growing body of scientific evidence which points to the benefits that grassfed farming systems offer in terms of soil carbon sequestration, and how the grazing process helps to the build the levels of organic matter in the soil, storing carbon in the process? Just two issues directly related to the climate change debate that both York and Eshel’s articles fail to even consider. But there are countless other aspects of the grassfed debate which fall outside of both their views on the issue.

For example, what about the animal welfare issues associated with feedlot production? What about the fact that although the corn may indeed make the cattle grow much more “efficiently,” cattle are “designed” to convert forage, and not copious quantities of grain? We know that when cattle arrive at feedlots, the change from a forage-based diet to the unnatural corn-based diet (intended to fatten them as fast as possible) must be managed carefully to avoid serious diet and digestive-related problems like acidiosis (a serious form of bovine heart burn which can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease and a general ill health) and “feedlot bloat.” Feedlot bloat is a major cause of sudden death in feedlots. It occurs when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, which affects the normal operation of the rumen, preventing the natural expulsion of gas (burping). As a result, the rumen literally inflates like a balloon–often very quickly –compressing the animal’s lungs and other internal organs. If the animal is not treated swiftly it can literally suffocate to death.

What about the routine diet of antibiotics used on feedlots to prevent the outbreak of diseases which would otherwise run riot among the immunologically weakened animals living in closely confined conditions? What about the routine feeding of low levels of key antibiotics to “promote growth” and which is leading to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria–meaning that essential antibiotics are fast becoming useless in the treatment of life-threatening human diseases, such as MRSA?

What about the human health implications of the corn-based cattle diet? York mentions E. coli as an issue of beef in general. But what about the fact that feeding corn creates an unnaturally acidic environment in the cattle’s digestive system which results in the growth of acid loving–and human health threatening–bacteria in the cattle’s gut, such as E. coli 0157:H7? We know that when these bacteria are exposed to low doses of antibiotics throughout the cattle’s life they can develop resistance and become “superbugs,” so when the bacteria are inevitably transferred to meat during the slaughter process, and a food poisoning outbreak occurs, the usual drugs no longer work. What about the financial cost of the regular resulting mass beef recalls and the associated human costs for those who are affected?

What about the nutritional advantages of grassfed beef? The fact that, when compared to feedlot beef, it contains far higher levels of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, higher levels of vitamin E and much higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) – a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk?

What about the environmental pollution associated with factory farms? Not to mention the cost of “storing” the millions of tons of manure produced by these feedlots? While grassfed farmers rely on the more modest levels of manure produced by their cattle in order to help maintain the natural fertility of their soils, feedlot farmers see it only as waste.

Science is a vital tool in unraveling the vast complexities of climate change, and the science is changing all the time. By all means, scientists should present their research and contribute to the debate. But while Eshel and I might agree on the need to cut down on our general meat consumption, and York and I might agree on the need to support better quality meats, unfortunately, the case each puts forward isn’t new; it’s based entirely on existing scientific research, much of which is highly contested. But what these articles really highlight is the fact that it really isn’t helpful to only consider one section of the full chain of production while ignoring other very significant areas of the debate.

Evidently, at least two more years because in that time there’s been no movement to address the fundamental cause of contamination in the U.S. meat supply: feedlot production.

And I’m worried for our children’s health and lives.

It was two years ago today that the U.S. saw its largest meat recall in history, prompting Harkin’s outrage.  The USDA recalled 143 million pounds of beef distributed by Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company and said that the meat had been used in school lunches and food assistance programs.

On January 18 of this year, Huntington Meat Packing Inc. of Montebello, CA recalled 864,000 lbs of beef because it may have been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This past weekend the recall was expanded to more than 5 million lbs of meat. Some of the products made from this meat appear to have been distributed through the USDA National School Lunch Program.

Happy anniversary of the Hallmark recall, America! You were expecting flowers?

E. coli O157:H7 is a bacterium that can cause severe illness, especially in the very young, seniors, or persons with weakened or compromised immune systems. The shattering effects of E. coli O157:H7 were detailed in an October 3, 2009 New York Times article, E. coli Path Show Flaws in Beef Inspection.

The recent recall of 5 million pounds may seem like a drop in the bucket compared with the 143 million pounds recalled two years ago, but when it comes to the health and lives of our children, I must implore, “When is enough, enough? Why are we poisoning our children?”

I applaud any efforts the USDA and other government agencies are making to strengthen the safety of our food system, but to quote an old saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Food safety regulations seem to be focused on throwing pounds of cure at the problem; cures that time and time again don’t work, sometimes make things worse, and leave our families vulnerable to contamination and illness. We feed our farm animals antibiotics, we irradiate meat, we require more testing and increased regulations at processing plants and still meat is recalled.

Therein lies the problem—the government is stubbornly dedicated to, as former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler put it, “chasing the horse after it’s out of the barn,” while study after study piles up providing evidence that the most effective way to stop the spread of dangerous E. coli contamination starts—and ends— with keeping cattle on pasture and out of feedlots. It’s an issue we’ve regularly covered in the AWA blog, where a click on the food safety link brings up 35 entries. But it bears repeating and I’ll keep at it until government can see its way clear from corporate interests to effect real change in the name of food safety.

Unfortunately, until the country is truly ready to address food safety issues, the primary defense you have against E. coli is your own common sense.

In the meantime, what can you do to keep your children and loved ones as safe as possible? AWA has a few suggestions:

• Every time there’s a recall contact your school district and make sure they are not using those products.
• Ask your school district’s food director to only source from suppliers operating a test-and-hold procedure.

• If you have a parent or other loved one in a hospital or nursing facility that uses a food service company, call them as well, and make sure recalled items aren’t on their menus.

• Follow safe food handling guidelines.

• Check in with your doctor even if you think it’s just the stomach flu. Stomach flu and food poisoning often mimic each other but the only way to discover and trace food poisoning is to know who’s sick to begin with.

• Most importantly, when possible, purchase only pastured meat, dairy and eggs from AWA farmers. Redirecting your food budget to safer, more humane meat, dairy and eggs is the surest way to keep your food and your family safe.

Animal Welfare Approved ranchers in southeast US looking for Animal Welfare Approved/American Grassfed Association certified farms to supply calves for grassfed operations.  If not currently certified, must be willing to pursue free certification. Immediate need.  Please contact Julie Munk at info@animalwelfareapproved.org or at 202.546.5292.  Please pass along.  Thanks.

From Grazin’ Angus Acres Farm Profile

Despite the pouring rain at NYC’s Union Square Greenmarket, customer after customer stopped by to ask Dan Gibson from Grazin’ Angus Acres detailed questions about how he raises his animals. His new status as the first Animal Welfare Approved farmer in Greenmarket is something he’s very proud of and it shows in his conversations. Dan said he gets these questions all the time, but that’s why he loves having a farmstand at Greenmarket. He appreciates when people ask questions and come for tours on the farm. “Once they come for a tour of the farm,” he said, “they’re customers for life.”

While Dan is usually the person you’ll meet at the farmers’ markets, he doesn’t run the farm alone. He raises 250 head of cattle and 400 laying hens with his wife Susan, his son Keith and his wife Nicole and their partners Jim and Ilene Stark. Dan and his family are successful farmers even though they didn’t come from a farming background. Dan was a corporate executive in NYC and after 9/11 he decided to leave the corporate world. Two and a half years ago Dan retired to become a full time farmer.

When asked why his eggs are “so great,” Dan replied, “The hens are pasture raised and the eggs have an orange yolk that’s full of beta carotene and Omega-3’s. The hens are out and about all day long eating bugs and grass-they’re supplemented with 100% organic grain.” The fact that his animals are pasture raised is very important to Dan. He said, “‘Pasture-raised’ is key, ‘free-range’ is meaningless. All of our chickens are moved to fresh grass every day. We want our animals to have a longer life span and raising our cattle to a later age gives nicer tasting beef because it allows the animals to marble. We cultivate the best grasses, 100% Black Angus, best genetics.”

Grazin’ Angus Acres applied for the Animal Welfare Approved certification because as Dan recalls, “I was sure in my heart that I was doing the right things, not just providing a superior, safe and efficacious product and we were sure we were treating our animals with the respect that our customers in NYC and Albany would appreciate. I could talk about it all I wanted, but without the Animal Welfare Approved seal it wouldn’t [have the same impact].”

Cow burps are the most recent in the list of accused contributors to global warming from the livestock sector. However, a simple measurement of methane production does not tell the whole story. A new report by the Soil Association reevaluates greenhouse gas production in agriculture, taking into account the grazing system – not just the “end product.”

This controversy erupted in recent years as figures emerged about agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. As we discussed in our November 16, 2009 blog, “Beware of Bad Science,” grassfed cattle actually produce fewer emissions than those finished in feedlots, simply because of the carbon sequestration in their pasture-based systems. The new Soil Association report confirms this and adds new data to support the position.

Highlights from the report include:

• The current greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting systems ignore soil carbon impact. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific advisers, 89% of agriculture’s GHG mitigation potential resides in improving soil carbon levels.
• On average, organic farming practices produce 28% higher soil carbon levels than non-organic farming in Northern Europe, and 20% for all countries studied (in Europe, North America and Australasia).

• If UK farmers converted cultivated land to organic farming, the carbon “savings” would be the equivalent of taking nearly a million family cars off the road.

Download the entire report, Soil Carbon and organic farming. A review of the evidence of agriculture’s potential to combat climate change.

While Animal Welfare Approved farmers supply numerous Whole Foods Market stores, typically it has been difficult for consumers to find Animal Welfare Approved products at these stores because most AWA products will lack the familiar AWA label. And since Whole Foods Market stores offer a variety of meat products from a host of different sources, consumers need to ask for Animal Welfare Approved products  by the specific farm or farm group where the animals were raised on pasture or range.

A state-by-state list of Whole Foods Market stores that stock AWA meats, and specifically what you should ask for at the meat counter, is available on www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org/whole-foods/. Since the AWA products lack labels, asking the butcher for meat from a specific farm is the key to ensuring Animal Welfare Approved meat is a part of your meaningful holiday meal.

Consumers can find a searchable database of other Animal Welfare Approved products on the AWA website.  AWA wishes everyone a humane and happy holiday season!