Monday, March 3, 2008

Natural vs Unnatural, Organic vs Inorganic

Let's take a look at these labels. Given the choice, wouldn't you choose organic and natural over inorganic and unnatural? We can guess that the answer is "yes," but if we start to look at the reasons behind practices deemed inorganic and unnatural, we may begin to see why they are used.

Take, for instance, hormones. There is no strong evidence that hormone implants cause or do not cause harm to humans or the implanted animal. It is, however, most definitely unnatural, so that tips the scale in favor of the better-safe-than-sorry route. However, health arguments aside, excluding hormones increases the time and resources (food, labor) required for an animal to reach market weight.

If we throw grass-fed beef into the mix, the acres required to raise beef increases. Consider this scenario provided by one of our NPOV members in response to a rancher in California raising grass-fed beef:

"500 head on 3500 acres? That's 1 head for every 7 acres, or if you're
in tune with most of the world it would take 2.8 hectares to raise 1
head - approximately 600# of beef. If you assume the US has 173,450,000
hectares of arable land (2003) and the population is 301,197,947 (early
2007) then each of us will get about 120# / year, the equivalent of a
little more that a quarter pounder/day. That's assuming we raise only
cattle on nothing but arable land (one of the beauties of livestock is
that they can use so-called "waste" land), no carrots or peas or apples
or oranges or pecans or peanuts or cotton or soybeans (for meat
substitute?), no land for cities or golf courses or parks or fence rows
or etc. ad nauseum. But we could still grow rice and cranberries, of
course.

If you look at the entire world the situation isn't as rosy -
1,402,317,000 hectares of arable land (2003 and from what I've read
we're losing approximately 100,000 sq km/yr) with a population of
6,602,224,175 (2007) makes that 0.075 hectares/person, about 45# of that
same beef/person/year, slightly less that 1/2 a quarter pounder/day

In the US, we're alloted 0.576 hectares (1.4 acres, 61,973 sq ft) of
arable land using the above figures. Could any of us live on this
amount? In the world we'd be alloted 0.212 hectares (0.52 acres or
22,809 sq ft) - could we then?"


Here is an excerpt from a study from the Hudson Institute Center for Global Food Issues:

"Eco-benefits wise, we can produce basically three times as much beef per given unit of land with grain finishing with the aid of growth promotants,” says Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute. And grain-finished, implanted cattle produce around 40% less greenhouse gas, he says.

That’s because feeding implanted, or even non-implanted cattle, reduces the amount of time it takes to get the beef to market.

“If we look at the land-use equation from the amount of acre-days that are needed to produce one pound of beef, an organic grass-fed system required just over 5 acre-days of land to produce a pound of beef,” Avery says. “Just about 2 acre-days (were required) for a pound of beef produced with grain finishing without the help of growth promotants and only 1 2/3 acre-days for a pound of beef produced with grain finishing with growth promotants.”

Cattle finished on a grass-based system produced about twice as much enteric methane during the finishing phase, he says, compared with grain-fed animals with growth promotants.


Follow this link to see the entire Hudson Institute study.


How much more land and labor will Chuck require? We can already make an educated guess that he will require more resources to reach your plate than his fellow herd mates. In the end, even if Chuck is entirely sustainable and natural, could we feed a nation, village or family year-round using those same practices?

Year-to-Date Weather Summary

Hi Temperature: 90.3 deg F, 32.4 deg C
Low Temperature: -12.9 deg F, -25 deg C
Precipitation: 23.75 in, 60.32 cm
Avg. Wind: 6.8 mph, 10.9 kmph
Hi Wind: 47 mph, 75.6 kmph

Our high temperature in February was 46/7.7 degrees F/C, our low was -7/-21.6 degrees F/C, and our mean temperature was 22.3/-5.38 degrees F/C, which is 5.7/2.8 degrees F/C below average.

We received .52 in /1.32 cm of liquid precipitation (rain, melted snow) and 4 in/10.16 cm of solid precipitation (snow, ice, etc.).

What does this mean for us? The long answer is in the next paragraph, but the short answer is that it increased our feed costs by about .04/head/day. It also required more run-time from our tank heaters, but it's difficult to put a number on exactly how much more propane they used.

Colder temperatures raised our herd's energy requirement, thus increasing their consumption and our cost. If we use February's mean temperature of 22.3F/-5.38C and feed 5 lbs/2.27 kgs of corn per head per day with 15% waste (moisture, spillage, etc.), each cow requires 32 lbs /14.5 kgs of hay each day to meet her energy and nutrition requirements. If we use our cost of production for both corn and hay, our feed costs work out to be roughly $1.57/head/day. If we use the normal average mean temperature for February (28F/-2.2C) and feed the same amount of corn, each cow's hay requirement drops by 1 lb/.45kg per day. This would drop our feed costs to $1.53/head/day, a difference of four cents.

Monday, January 21, 2008

The Cost of Beef

At The Sale Barn

January 9th, 2008

Steers with an average weight of 616 lbs (279 kg) brought $101.75 /HW (hundred weight), which is roughly $1.02 / lb ($1.02 / .45 kg).

This is not to say ALL calves sell for this amount. Breed, condition, and weight all play a factor in addition to cash market variables. Additionally, not all of an animal's weight is meat, so the above price already doesn't translate directly to price per pound in the store. Follow this link for a formula to determine how much meat should come from a market animal. According to this link, an average beef cow will dress out at about 63% of its weight.

This gives you a ballpark figure of what Chuck might be worth at this time next year. Obviously, he will be raised differently than his herd mates and headed for a much different market, but his value will still be tied to the beef market. As producers, we hope our custom raised steer will bring a certain percentage above sale-barn value.

How much will our consumers save and producers gain without the middle-man? Perhaps a better question to ask is, "would you be willing to pay more than $600 for food not ready for your plate?" At this time next year, Chuck will have a long way to go before he's ready for consumption.

January 21st, 2009

606 lb. calves brought $100.50/HW, slightly less than last year. At this point, Chuck's market value is $609.

January 4th, 2010

Chuck is now hanging peacefully in a cool, dark locker at the Minden Meat Market. We don't know his pre-slaughter weight, but we're guessing around 1,100 lbs (499 kg). If we assume the formula mentioned earlier is correct, we can expect 63% of this number, or 693 lbs (314 kg).

How do we, then, determine how much we are paying for Chuck? Let's throw out the cost/live animal since the hanging weight will give us more of an idea of the true cost/lb for the end user (eaters) and work with the hanging weight. Follow this link to read about hanging weight.

What was our total cost of raising Chuck? Unfortunately, it wasn't easy or even practical to keep track of feeding costs for Chuck, mainly because he always had a bunk mate. Also, during harvest, we fed Chuck corn cleanings for two months, which is essentially free. We think it's safe to use an estimated cost of $1,000, which is also handy since it's a nice, round number.

If we divide $1,000 by the aforementioned hanging weight, we're looking at a cost of $1.44 / lb ($1.44 / .45 kg). If we use average figures from the formulas cited in the above link, we can expect roughly 485 lbs (220 kg) of take-home meat, which bumps our price up to $2.06 / lb ($2.06 / .45 kg).

We will know more about final costs in a few weeks when we get Chuck back home.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Where Is Chuck Now?

Where is your next meal coming from?

This is where you'll find updates on Chuck, NPOV's beef steer. We are also identifying him as OD1 in the event that this project continues.

January 2nd, 2008

Chuck is currently finishing up his second trimester of development in one of our cows, which is where our focus is right now. Snow still covers the ground, so our cows are eating hay and corn exclusively. It is possible that our cows will be able to graze on corn stalks and dormant grass before summer if conditions allow.

Even though Chuck is a few months away from birth and not yet demanding much from his mother, he is already on our financial radar. If we assume Chuck was conceived in July, we can derrive approximately how much we've spent maintaining his mother using the following formula: total cost of herd over six months / total animals in herd.

Total cost of Chuck: $260

When it comes time to sell calves next year, the idea is to sell them for a price that will at least cover ALL of our annual expenses. While the number above reflects expenses over the entire herd (43), our break-even will rise 100% if we only sell 21 calves.


January 24th, 2008

The temperature this morning at 8:00 am was -13 degrees F (-25 C), probably one of the lowest temperatures we can expect this winter. We are lucky that this temperature wasn't accompanied by strong winds or moisture, which can be a deadly combination for livestock. Follow this link to read more about cows and cold weather. We have temporary wind blocks and ground insulation set up, so our herd weathered the cold weather just fine. They didn't like walking around much, but they still got to the bunks to eat.

The lower critical temperature for a cow with a heavy winter coat (which ours have) is 19 degrees F (-7.2 C). We've had 11 days so far in January with a lower mean temperature, but the combination of dirt mounds, concrete surfaces around eating/drinking areas, and grass bale windbreaks/ground insulation (combined with good pen design) have allowed our cows to stay in good condition: all ingredients for a healthy, happy cow herd.

March 3rd, 2008

Chuck should hit the ground in April or May. His mother is in good condition coming out of the winter, so he should have a good chance of survival if Mother Nature cooperates. Follow this link to read more about the first 12 hours of a calf's life.

March 13th, 2008

Life is full of surprises. This morning we had two calves on the ground, a male and a female, both about two weeks ahead of schedule. The female was dry and healthy, but the male was only a few minutes old and much larger. His mom had some problems getting up--a 90 lb (40.8 kg) calf is a lot for a first birth--but once she did, she took right to her calf. The calf turned out to be particularly unsteady on his feet, so he couldn't nurse before his mom moved off. This situation required running the mom into the chute/head gate, priming her pump, then steadying the calf while squirting milk in his face. Both caught on to their respective roles and, thankfully, we didn't have to repeat the process. Both are doing well.

Calf #74, born 3/13, 90 lbs (40.8 kg)


Mom, calf, and other calf born same day


June 8th, 2008

By now, Chuck (OD #1) is nearly three months old and should be approaching 300 lbs (136 kg). JM, one of our NPOV members, recently visited and took these pictures:

Chuck, or OD1, about 2 1/2 months old. The tear in his right ear is where is tag (#74) used to be. Apparently, this kind of self-mutilation is all the rage with the younger generation.
We've had over 23 inches (58.4 cm) of rain this year, almost 9 inches (22.9 cm) more than average. As you can see, the lots are a muddy, muddy mess, but the pastures are growing well. While the herd is closed in the lots some days, they have green, drier pasture to graze and rest in most of the time.

Chuck is still nursing, but he is also eating grass along with the rest of the herd, and is sampling hay and a bit of corn. We sprinkle a bit of corn in the bunks to keep the herd manageable: when they hear a bucket, they mosey up to the bunk, making it easier for us to move them from pasture to pasture.

Total cost of Chuck: $235

You will notice that this figure is less than the figure posted in January. As I mentioned before, there are many ways to calculate costs of production that are only as good as the data entered in. As the year progresses, numbers, methods, and assumptions change.

December 16th, 2008

We weaned the calves from their mothers in early October, a stressful time for calves which can allow sickness to gain a foothold. Since the calves had been eating pasture on their own (via the creep gate, which allowed calves to pass through, but not cows), they still ate while they bawled. It took two days for the calves to catch on to eating corn out of a new set of bunks, so they barely missed a beat, which means minimal (if any) weight loss. Finally, we wean with a wire panel between cow and calf so they can see and smell each other.

We worked the calves in late November, administering vaccinations for 7-way Blackleg, hemophilus somnus (scroll down to "pathology"), IBR, BVD, PI3, BRSV, pasturella, brucella, pouring-on dewormer, and implanting Ralgro. Chuck received all of these with the exception of the Ralgro.

This looks like a lot of vaccinations, and it is. However, the philosophy is not unlike vaccinations for human babies. One or two unvaccinated animals in a herd doesn't mean much, but a group of unvaccinated animals increases the possiblity of debhilitating diseases raging through a herd; diseases are much easier to prevent than to treat. We look vaccinations as a way to increase the marketability of our calves and as a sort of bovine social responsibility.

The question is, then, could we get away with fewer vaccinations for Chuck? After selling the rest of the calves, he will be grouped together with one or two other animals that have had these vaccines. However, we don't typically vaccinate our main herd after their initial round, a practice our vet does not recommend. We have had few problems in the past, though we are at a higher risk of an infection/disease spreading quickly if it does gain a foothold.

So an answer may be yes if we think the vaccinations are harmful to the animal or to humans, and if we are willing to accept the added risk.

Total cost of Chuck to October 15th (wean): $513

Now we can assume we buy Chuck for cost ($513), keep track of how much feed he eats from here to slaughter, then add the two costs together. The main problem with this method is that it will not include labor, water costs, general upkeep, or other expenses. We'll think about how to include these costs as time goes on.

Since wean, we have fed roughly 20,800 lbs (9,435 kg) of hay and roughly 5600 lbs (2,540 kg; 100 bushels) of corn to 22 calves, which works out to be about $25/head.

Total cost of Chuck to date: $538

December 18th, 2008

Chuck, 9 months old and approaching 600 pounds.

Chuck


Chuck, a calf born late July, and a fellow steer

January 6th, 2010

This was the last day of Chuck's life. He was about 22 months old. As you can see, our updates were sorely lacking for the last year. This is due mainly to the fact that, after weaning, a steer's life is all about eating and very, very boring.