A recent report from the UK’s highly respected National Trust has confirmed what Animal Welfare Approved has been advocating for a long time: Feeding cattle on grass throughout their life-cycle is the most environmentally sustainable way to raise beef.

The new report – entitled What’s Your Beef – is an important contribution to the on-going debate about how to increase food security while reducing the environmental impacts of food production. Published by an organization responsible for the management of more than half a million acres of land across England, Wales and Northern Ireland on behalf of the nation, the messages in the report resonate with the arguments that AWA has presented for the wide-spread adoption of pasture-based livestock farming systems.

Over recent decades, a battle has raged over whether intensive cattle systems – where large numbers of cattle are confined in feedlots and fed a grain-based diet – represent a more environmentally-friendly system of producing meat and livestock products than grass-fed livestock farming, where cattle are given access to graze pasture. Proponents of intensive livestock production argue that energy use and greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef are increased three-fold in grass-fed beef cattle and that “the intuitively environmentally friendly option has a far higher resource and environmental cost.” In order to fuel our insatiable habit for unsustainable meat, they argue that we must further intensify our livestock production systems or to seek ways to further exploit farmed livestock.

However, the National Trust’s report once again demonstrates the inaccuracies of this report. Those who argue that cattle which are fed a high proportion of cereal-based feed have lower emissions than more extensive production systems rely on a limited life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess the GHG emissions from different beef production systems. However, The National Trust report argues that “a narrow LCA-based view of emissions ignores the wider aspects of sustainable land use.” Research on National Trust farms shows that while the carbon footprint of grass-fed and conventional farms were largely comparable, the ability of well-managed grass pasture on the less intensive systems to absorb carbon from the atmosphere – a natural process known as carbon sequestration – actually reduced net emissions by up to 94%, and even resulting in a carbon ‘net gain’ in upland areas. As cattle and other ruminants graze pasture, grass growth is stimulated.  This growth results in an increase of CO₂ absorption through its leaves and stores the CO₂ in the mass of roots underground in a far more stable form of carbon, resulting in carbon sequestration. Indeed, scientists now think that grazing cattle on pastures and restoring grasslands could play a vital role in slowing the global warming process.

While, intensification of production is viewed by some as the answer to meeting the food requirements of an increasing global population, it is now widely recognized that the intensification of farming has led to widespread environmental damage, including pollution of ground- and surface-water, soil degradation, reduced biodiversity and loss of carbon from land.  As stated in the National Trust Report, “Any intensification that damages the resources required for production is counterproductive, and a focus on optimizing, rather than maximizing farming efficiency is a far more positive approach.”

The National Trust also points out that increasing concerns about climate change have led some groups to call for a reduction – or even an end to – meat consumption in order to cut back on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with intensive livestock farming. I agree that we urgently need to reduce our intake of unsustainable, low-welfare, intensively reared meat – indeed, there’s a good chance that we’d all feel a lot better for doing so. But the National Trust also asserts, “many agricultural grasslands and grass-based habitats are not suitable or capable of growing arable crops for direct human consumption. Grazing by livestock, therefore, is the only way to turn grass into human-edible food.” Effective grassland management also helps to support a wide range of ecosystem services, including managing our water resources, biodiversity, and carbon capture and storage. As What’s Your Beef contends, when the true benefits to ecosystem services and human health are included, extensive grazing on grassland represents “the best use of this resource to produce food for people.”

Finally, as AWA has long argued, the National Trust report reiterates the message that grass-fed meat and livestock products are also better for us: “Recent research found that the health benefits of beef (and lamb) are greater when animals are fed totally on grass – their natural food.  Omega 3 fatty acids – recognized as essential to good physical and mental health – are higher in meat from grass and the levels of saturated fat are a third of grain fed beef.”

So there you have it: Yet more evidence that buying high quality, pasture-raised meat, such as that certified by Animal Welfare Approved, will mean that you are not only eating a healthier product and supporting family farms who raise their animals using the highest welfare standards in the US, but you are also helping to protect the planet for future generations.

It pains me to say it but there are some very real connections between BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and the recent “pink slime” fiasco that need to be aired.

I am not saying that “pink slime” (lean finely textured beef or LFTB for short) represents anything like the public health hazard that potentially BSE-infected meat could represent. Regulations are now in place to ensure that specified risk material is removed from every beef carcass so it does not enter the human food chain, and that the feeding of ground-up cattle remains back to cattle has been banned since 1997. However, it’s hard to ignore the fundamental similarities of the two incidents and, more importantly, the underlying circumstances and mindsets that led to the adoption in both cases of some highly questionable industry practices — practices that most people would have almost certainly have opposed had they been given the chance.

Both BSE and the “pink slime” fiasco are the indirect outcomes of the incessant drive to industrialize livestock farming and meat processing. Both are instances where an ethically-questionable processing technology was introduced (essentially) out of public sight — and certainly without widespread public knowledge or acceptance — where the primary aim was to utilize slaughterhouse waste in order to minimize industry costs. And both subsequently resulted in a significant negative impact on the public image of the livestock farming community as a whole.

The BSE epidemic in the U.K. occurred from the desire among some in the industry to maximize productivity at all cost by feeding cattle the treated ground-up remains of sheep and cattle carcasses (meat and bone meal or MBM), and subsequent industry pressure (certainly in the UK) to further relax the processing requirements during the MBM production process to further reduce the costs to industry. The result? The feeding of ever-increasing quantities of BSE-infected MBM material back to the UK herd, as young cattle ate BSE-infected cattle remains before being rendered to MBM themselves at the end of their useful lives to continue the terrible cycle. It’s fair to say that most British consumers had absolutely no idea that ruminant remains were being ground up and fed back to other ruminants. When the story first emerged, most consumers saw this as wholly unnatural and most were disgusted, which was bad enough PR for the industry. But the causal link between the consumption of BSE-infected beef and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) — the human form of BSE — which subsequently broke in the news utterly devastated the British beef and dairy industry.

Similarly, the “pink slime” debacle occurred because the meat processing industry introduced a questionable technology out of the sight of the consumer, with the primary aim of utilizing slaughterhouse byproduct in an effort to maximize productivity and minimize costs. The new technology enabled the processor to utilize fatty trimmings from the carcass that were previously used for pet food or converted into oil. The technology involved heating these trimmings so that the fat separated from the muscle, then using a centrifuge to spin off the fat and extract the protein from the trimmings. As trimmings from the outer surface of the beef carcass have the potential for greater contamination with bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella than other cuts of meat, the centrifuged protein mixture was finally sprayed with ammonia gas to kill the bacteria, before freezing.

Now, you could argue that the meat processors and food retailers involved just got it terribly wrong and mistakenly assumed that the public would be happy with the process involved in manufacturing LFTB, and that they wouldn’t care about the unlabeled addition of up to 15 percent LFTB to their ground beef. But it’s hard not to conclude that the meat processors and food retailers actually did very little — if anything — to inform the public of this new cost-saving process, and in fact did everything they could to ensure that consumers were kept in the dark by lobbying to avoid having to label this new product, for example.

Some in the industry may well argue that “Dude, it’s beef.” However, most consumers clearly did not agree. The real cause of public anger was the fact that most people were completely unaware that LFTB was being added to the ground beef they were buying in the first place, let alone the processes involved in manufacturing it. Despite the heartrending assertions from the industrial beef lobby and its paid-up politicians that LFTB was just beef, that it was a matter of food safety, or that the LFTB was “sustainability incarnate,” most consumers saw the unlabeled addition of LFTB to ground beef as nothing more than an attempt by meat processors and food retailers to squeeze yet more cents from the carcass in order to further maximize profits.

Rather than damning the ignorant public and unfair media coverage, I think that the industry would do well to take a long, hard look in the mirror and recognize the recent “pink slime fiasco” and ongoing public concern about BSE for what they really represent: a latent public concern about the over-industrialization of food production. For many consumers now have a profound feeling that, when it comes to food production, the pendulum has well and truly swung too far towards the adoption of highly-questionable practices on the basis of “what can make us the most money — regardless of the costs.”

Windy Hamlet Farm’s sheep are raised in a high-welfare system that allows them perform their natural behaviors. “My focus has always been on the welfare and care of my animals,” says Dorothy. Her sheep are out every day except in extreme cold or wet weather. Lambs are raised on their mothers and socialize with other members of the flock. Dorothy also has two livestock guard dogs and a guard donkey for non-lethal predator protection. Dorothy says of Animal Welfare Approved that “it was refreshing to find a group that recognizes the importance of the animals living a natural life on the farm. I think that people do appreciate knowing that the products that they buy come from animals raised naturally.”

Windy Hamlet wool and lamb meat is available for sale directly from the farm.

For the next couple of years they grazed dairy heifers during the summer so the land could be managed to produce cattle without feeding grain. By 2003, an interest in the hearty nature of the Belted Galloway breed plus other desirable qualities of the breed resulted in their purchase of a cow-calf pair. To expand the herd they initially purchased registered and well bred cows and raised their own heifer calves.

Although Blakemore Farm’s Animal Welfare Approved herd of beef cattle has grown, they maintain a small herd on their 90 acre farm, utilizing all their available pastures for grazing and carefully selecting high quality hay from a local farmer to feed during the winter months.  The Blakemores are proud that their grassfed cattle are never fed grains. They employ intensive rotational grazing methods, which they have perfected over many years of experience. This practice allows them to optimize their land use and benefits the health of their pastures and their cattle.

The Blakemores have also learned that their cattle benefit from supplemental selenium, a mineral missing in the soil in their region, and sea kelp. They are happy to share the knowledge that they have accumulated over time with others interested in high-welfare farming. Cynthia recommends that new farmers interested in grazing “read, ask lots of questions and visit folks who have been doing it for years.”

Cynthia learned about Animal Welfare Approved from other farmers in her area and once she read the standards knew that the program was in line with her own convictions. “Our goal,” she says, “is to have the cattle out where they can move around, have fresh water,” and perform their natural behaviors.

Blakemore Farm beef can be bought direct from the farm in Buskirk, New York. Call or email for availability.

Figures initially presented by Dr. Danilo Lo Fo Wong of the World Health Organization reveal that the U.S. is leading the world in the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming – and by a long way. We use more antibiotics per kilogram of meat produced than any other nation in the world – and we use 12 times as much as the country using the least, Norway. In doing so we are jeopardizing our future ability to treat killer diseases, all for the sake of so-called “cheap” animal protein and short-term industry profit. In this case, by coming in first, we may actually be in danger of losing it all.

Just last week Professor Lance Price from the TGen Centre for Microbiomics and Human Health in Arizona spoke in London, the site of this years’ Olympic Games, to highlight not American excellence, but American failings, saying that U.S. lawmakers were “significantly further behind Europe” after the European Union banned the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in 2006.

Scientific consensus around the world now emphatically links the use of medicinally important antibiotics in intensive livestock farming to the dramatic rise in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Virtually all intensively farmed animals in the U.S. receive regular low levels of antibiotics to help maximize production and prevent the inevitable outbreak of disease in the confined conditions in which the animals are kept. This has provided us with cheap animal protein, but the chickens are now coming home to roost. Exposure to low doses of antibiotics naturally selects for resistance, and many bacteria strains are now resistant to the same antibiotics we use to treat ourselves. Some dangerous strains of bacteria, such as E. coli, are now resistant to several key antibiotics, so when we get infected there are fewer and fewer options for treatment. And we are fast running out of options altogether.

As a result, public pressure is finally mounting on the intensive livestock farming industry to change its ways. The latest development comes in the form of a federal court judge, who ruled earlier this week that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must start taking action to withdraw the approval of two key antibiotics – penicillin and tetracyclines – for routine use in intensive livestock production due to the risks to human health. This followed a lawsuit filed last year by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

In 1977, the FDA concluded that feeding farm animals low doses of certain antibiotics that were also used in human medicine could promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria capable of infecting people. The lawsuit contended that, despite this conclusion and subsequent laws requiring the FDA to act on its findings, the FDA had failed to take any action to protect human health for the last 35 years, choosing instead to favor the interests of the intensive livestock farming industry. The court decision noted, “In the intervening years, the scientific evidence of the risks to human health from the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock has grown.”

While this court ruling won’t immediately end the routine use of antibiotics in farming, it will force the antibiotic manufacturers to provide evidence in a public forum that the use of these drugs in intensive farming does not harm human health – or take them off the market. The science is telling us that the routine use of low-dose antibiotics in intensive livestock farming is contributing to the rapid development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What we now need is the political will to act on this science and to hold the intensive farming industry to account – before we lose these important medicines forever.

Over recent weeks, the public appears to have finally found its voice in the food debate. Judging by the public outrage over recent weeks, most Americans appear to agree that when you have to use a centrifuge and add ammonia to fatty scraps of meat to make it lean and “safe,” you really shouldn’t be trying to sell it as “beef.” The big question is: could the public’s outrage over the undisclosed addition of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) – aka “pink slime” – in ground beef be the catalyst we need to bring about the necessary changes in the way we farm and feed ourselves?

In the race to produce ever-cheaper animal protein we stand to lose some of the most important medical discoveries in human history. Unless we take action now, we face a potentially terrifying era in our history: a world where antibiotics no longer work. It’s up to each of us to contact our political representatives and to tell them that enough is enough. We can no longer just sit back and allow the intensive livestock industry to obliterate the usefulness of these life-saving medicines.

Kinne Brook Farm has been in the Lake family since 1980. In 2010, Eliza and her husband Bart bought the farm and the family now lives in the early 19th-century farmhouse on the property.

The family is most proud of is their good care of the land.  Eliza said, “We move our cattle every two days to encourage intense grazing which in turn promotes a rich, diverse ecosystem in our fields.  We have Highlanders because they’re great at eating grasses as well as invasive, non-grass ‘stuff’ and they produce a rich, flavorful beef. We’re really proud that we’re transitioning the farm to sustainable, non-chemical practices by working with the animals’ natural instincts and abilities.”

In addition to having their cattle and laying hens certified with AWA, the farmers of Kinne Brook Farm have been named Local Heroes by CISA (Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture).

To learn more about Kinne Brook Farm, please visit http://www.kinnebrookfarm.com/.

Take the latest mantra that cropped up in an online discussion that I was following: ‘Before you buy any food you should go and visit the farm, because that will answer all your questions.’ Buying direct from the farm or at the farmers’ market is something I wholeheartedly enjoy supporting. In doing so, my family hasn’t bought into the appalling practices of industrial agriculture; we’ve used our dollars to support local farms – and the food usually tastes great, too. But is it realistic to expect every conscientious consumer to have the time and ability to actually visit the farm first – let alone the expertise to assess what they see when they get there?

As the saying goes, the more you know the less you understand. This is certainly true for me; when it comes to food and farming it’s not just a casual interest, it’s my job. But even with my experience I am the first to accept there’s always more to learn; and that for certain areas of farming and food production I have team members who know a lot more than I do. So while I applaud the growing number of consumers who are taking steps to understand where their food comes from and how it is produced, the assertion that you must personally visit a farm before you can trust the food – and that by implication most of us could assess if a farm meets our requirements – is disingenuous on both counts.

Now I don’t want to discourage anyone from visiting farms. In fact we speak loudly about doing just that, and the need for this kind of transparency in agriculture. A visit to a working farm, speaking to the farmer and finding out how food is produced is a fantastic opportunity, and something that I believe every schoolchild should experience as part of their curriculum. Similarly, the last thing I want to suggest is that you must have a doctorate in animal welfare or a master’s degree in environmental sustainability to have an opinion on whether a farm is doing a reasonable job or not. There’s a lot to be said for common sense – if the average person were taken behind the closed doors of many industrial farms in this country it would soon become apparent that animal welfare and environmental stewardship are very low on the list of priorities. However, some things are just not that obvious – practices such as the use of hormones, non-therapeutic antibiotics, and long-term confinement simply cannot be detected by a quick walk around the farm on a single day in June.

The participants of the recent online discussion I mentioned earlier also made much of buying local. While supporting local farms is important, I would point out that even industrial producers such as Tyson have farms that are local to someone. The term ‘local’ does not automatically guarantee good farming practices. Local might mean that visiting the farm is more feasible, but in terms of evaluating sustainability it’s not that helpful. And, as conscientious consumers, is it realistic to expect everyone in the state to burn all that gas driving out to the farm each weekend to check on the animals? Of course not. Even if we as consumers did regularly visit the farm year-round, do we then have to take the next logical step and start visiting the slaughter plant, too? I’m not sure my family would thank me for that little weekend trip.

So what is the answer? A day out on a local farm will certainly give you a good idea of its practices. Farms that open up to the public are a great educational resource for the family, especially children. Understanding that cheese is made from milk and milk comes from cows, and then seeing a cow milked, is really important for our kids – many of whom grow up thinking that milk just comes from the supermarket.

However, if you aren’t able to make regular visits to every farm your food dollar touches, and if you really want to have confidence in the farms you are supporting, you need to look for a credible third-party certification. Animal Welfare Approved is the ONLY certification that guarantees high-welfare, pasture-based management on an independent family farm. Because of this, we have become the most highly regarded food label for animal welfare and sustainability. For a comprehensive guide to the major certifications and food labels see our new guide, “Food Labeling for Dummies” available for free download at www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org.

Buying food which carries the Animal Welfare Approved seal means you can be sure that the farm – and slaughter plant – have been assessed and scored against a comprehensive list of standards by an experienced auditor. With certified farms across the country and in Canada, Animal Welfare Approved serves as the eyes and ears for today’s conscientious – and often very busy – consumers. So whether you see it displayed at your local farmers’ market, or on products sold in your local grocery store, when you see the AWA logo you know exactly what you are getting: meat, eggs and dairy products that come from farms where high welfare and sustainable management always come first.

The image above originally appeared in AWA’s article, “Behind the Label,” in the April 2011 issue of Well Fed Savannah magazine.

Obviously, Boneless Lean Meat Trimmings sounds a lot more appetizing than “pink slime.” But whatever you call it, what is it? And how is it produced?  The “pink slime is a myth” website says that BLBT is the meat and fat that is trimmed away when beef is cut. This is true as far as it goes. But BLBT isn’t quite the same as the bits of meat that you or your butcher might cut off the edge of a steak or other piece of meat. BLBT is the fatty trimmings that even BPI agrees couldn’t be separated with the knife. In the past, these trimmings were used for pet food or converted into oil rather than being served as hamburgers to people.

BPI discovered that first simmering the trimmings so that the fat separates from the muscle, and then using a centrifuge to spin off the fat and so extract the protein from the trimmings, resulted in a lean product that could be used in food. The next challenge was to make this recovered “meat” safe to eat. BPI is well aware – having commissioned its own reports in the past – that trimmings from the outer surface of the beef carcass have the potential for greater contamination with bacteria than other cuts of meat. These scraps of meat are susceptible to contamination with E. coli and Salmonella. The BPI answer is to send the centrifuged “meat” mixture through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas intended to kill the bacteria. The end product may not exactly look like “slime” and some of the photos accompanying blogs on this topic have actually been of recovered poultry meat rather than beef – but it certainly doesn’t look like beef either.

Some estimates suggest that as well as being put into school food, 70% of all hamburgers contain at least some “pink slime.” BPI says that BLBT “rarely” makes up more than 25% of the final product – but that’s still a lot of recovered meat “waste” that wouldn’t be in any hamburger you made from beef you’d ground at home. Interestingly, when Beef magazine’s website ran a story deriding the “media hysteria” and supporting the new “pink slime is a myth” website, the comments from ranchers – a group not generally inclined to take a non-industry line – were disparaging. The general feeling was that beef producers could not and should not defend this product. It seems that everyone aside from those making money from pink slime can see that when you have to use a centrifuge and add ammonia to fatty scraps of meat to make it lean and “safe,” you really shouldn’t be trying to sell it as “beef.”

Even the fast food companies McDonald‘s, Burger King and Taco Bell stopped using meat that was treated with ammonia last year. These are not companies that sell their products as being healthy and wholesome – yet they recognize that this treated meat fills consumers with distaste. Today, the grocery chain Kroger released a list of products containing “pink slime” so you can avoid them should you wish. Kroger is honest enough to admit the presence of pink slime and hopefully the company is considering removing it from its stores.

So, if pink slime isn’t good enough for McDonald’s, why on earth does the USDA think it is good enough for our children? One argument is that with tight budgets, ammonia-treated recovered meat is a cheaper option to provide protein in school lunches. But the estimates I’ve seen suggest that the savings are as little as a few cents a pound. While this adds up to a fair amount when you buy 7 million pounds of meat, are the savings really worth it?

The picture does not improve when you see what former USDA microbiologists say about BLBT. Gerald Zirnstein was the man who first coined the phrase “pink slime” in an email message to colleagues back in 2002. He said that calling the product “ground beef” as USDA wanted to do amounted to “fraudulent labeling.” Another USDA scientist, Carl Custer, interviewed a few days ago was concerned that the department had approved the ammonia treated beef for sale without obtaining independent confirmation that the product did not have a food safety risk.  Yet, in 2009, there were two back-to-back incidents of salmonella contamination which caused 52,000 pounds of BLBT to be recalled.

With amazing shamelessness, the American Meat Institute (AMI) is also trying to promote pink slime as being sustainable. Their argument is that utilizing these trimmings in a world where red meat protein supplies are decreasing and global demand is increasing is a good thing and improves the efficiency of the beef industry. But this product wasn’t wasted before BPI came along with its centrifuges and ammonia – it had less profitable uses. And sustainability – as well as feeding the world an adequate supply of protein – is far more complex than ensuring a constant supply of a protein that no one in their right mind would want to eat. We can do a lot more to feed the world in a sustainable way by thinking about our eating habits and purchasing high-welfare pasture-raised meat.

Some within the USDA pushed for pink slime to be listed as an ingredient on the hamburger patties to which it was added. But because the substance was designated simply as “meat,” there’s no way of knowing if it’s been added to the grocery store grind that you’re buying. Likewise, the USDA considers ammonia gas a “processing agent” rather than an ingredient, so the addition of ammonia does not have to be listed anywhere.

This is the same old story—if you want to be sure of what you’re getting, then you need to buy meat from farmers who are producing a high quality, unadulterated product. A product that doesn’t need to be treated with ammonia hydroxide in order to reduce the risk of food poisoning. A product that is truly sustainable. You need to look for meat produced by Animal Welfare Approved farmers.

If you do nothing else, sign this petition to get “pink slime” out of our children’s diets. Sign the petition to the USDA here.

Zitvogel Farms

Tonya  and Edward Zitvogel, II and their children Casey, Allie and Jacob raise Animal Welfare Approved laying hens at Zitvogel Farms in Bridgeville, DE. Before becoming a full time farmer Edward was a nutrient management specialist for the University of Maryland and has been a field scout for row crops and vegetables as well.  Zitvogel Farms, the farm where Edward was born and raised, is a 200 acre farm that specializes in vegetables and hay. They grow tomatoes in a 24′x96′ high tunnel and grow almost 2000′ row feet of Dr. Martin Pole Limas as well as an acre of sweet potatoes. The Zitvogels raise several breeds of AWA laying hens including Barred Rocks, Partridge Rocks, Speckled Sussex, Buff Orpington, Delaware, and Welsummers.

“I was raised to be a steward of the land,” says Edward when discussing the most important aspects of farming. “And I most enjoy teaching my children how to be stewards as well.”

Zitvogel Farms applied for Animal Welfare Approved certification because Edward says, “I feel that if you are going to raise some particular livestock you should do it correctly. AWA is the most stringent standard out there and I wanted the bar to be set high on our farm.”

The Millers’ 12 sows, which are mixed Landrace, Poland China, Chester White, Yorkshire and Berkshire, are bred with Duroc boars. H & H Farm’s hogs live outdoors on pasture and Hugh Jr. and Sr. ensure that their animals are raised safely and according to the highest welfare standards. Hugh Sr. says that they “want to know that the hogs we raise are treated humanely and they are fed properly for the consumers.” Having Animal Welfare Approved certification allows the customers who buy H & H Farm pork to “know that our animals are raised by a set of standards—that not only are they fed right, but they are also handled the right way.”

Hugh Sr. and Jr. are now being joined by the fifth generation of Miller family farmers, Joshua, who is taking an interest in the family’s hog operation.