Based on the comments from the last batch of postings, we are detecting an interesting use of "natural." What, exactly, is natural-raised beef?
Val commented that feeding both Corid and DDGs would enable Chuck to remain natural. We think the caveat here would be "natural according to _________" (insert agency here). While it's good to have an official set of guidelines, we feel it's okay to stray from any agency's criteria.
Pat commented that Jon is the expert here, but we would put forth the notion that consumers need to be the experts. The fact that we are referring to Agency X shows our ignorance on who determines what is natural and what is not. Consumers need to be intimately familiar with either Agency X or the food their beef steer is eating.
JM posted that "we do pay more for quality..." We sincerely hope that Chuck provides quality meat; then again, we have not established any quality guidelines for our final product other than what goes in Chuck's mouth. We think that is a great start, but we are beginning to see some limitations to that approach.
So what do we know about natural? We would suggest that, on the most fundamental level, there is absolutely nothing natural about beef. Chuck is an unnatrual genetic product of selective cross-breeding in a controlled environment, so why should we even be concerned with natural?
We are coming around to a few ways of thinking.
First, can we accept that young, tender, succulent beef is a luxury? The guidelines in the IBC's pamphlet almost certainly exclude grass-fed beef.
Second, if we do accept beef as a luxury, a beef animal probably should be raised with the final product in mind. Put another way, the end should justify the means.
Third, the end never justifies the means. Even if we love young, tender, succulent beef, we should reject it if it means a miserable life for the animal providing it. This begins to reach in to the realm of what goes in a beef steer's mouth.
Fourth all things in moderation. 16-month-old beef might produce the tastiest, most tender beef, but if it means pumping an animal full of hormones and medications, we must compromise taste and tenderness for safety: for us and the animal. Conversely, if grass-fed beef doesn't meet our quality standards or expectations, why shouldn't we throw some corn, in moderation, into a bovine's diet? If the USDA has determined a safe withdrawal period prior to slaughter, why shouldn't we also throw some Corid in to help an animal gain weight?
Fifth, we would like to suggest that you, the members of NPOV's beef steer, are the experts on what is natural. The purpose of this project is to let you know what we are feeding Chuck, so when you put your fork into a juicy, 1 1/2" top sirloin, you are comfortable knowing this animal ingested Corid. At the end of the day, when you, the members of NPOV's Beef Steer Project, come home from work and decide to prepare some Chuck for supper, you have taken ultimate responsibility for what is or is not on your plate, not Agency X.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a consumer and when I really think about it, I have no idea of what really is in the products and meat that I consume. Yes, I read the labels but what do they tell me? Very little and mostly in code. I do think that after tasting the beef that comes in the mostly unmarked tube and cheap, and Lauras Lean Beef and Ranchers Whathisname from Idaho, the one labled "natural" and "organic" and the one closest in shipping time is the best. Most expensive,yes. And I buy it. But what is it really? Was that cow happy, or on serious medicines or supplements because Agency X said it was ok and met the definition of organic or natural?
I am more confused now that ever. Our happy healthy Chuck is now sick, deformed and underweight. Is he so engineered to be rasied in such a way that deviating causes trouble? Or did it just happen Just Cuz.
Still, at least when I am eating that delicious steak, Iknow his origin, history and his caretaker...which is way more than I know about every other piece of meat that I eat.
I don't think Chuck is engineered in such a way that deviation causes sickness. I wouldn't be surprised to find all kinds of vet-diagnosed problems in the rest of our herd that aren't showing visible signs of distress. We are paying much more attention to Chuck, so we are more likely to examine him with a fine-tooth comb. That said, none of our other animals have a hunched back. Chuck's humped back is certainly unappealing, but as near as we can tell, it's a symptom of pneumonia. I think the only way it will affect how he tastes is if he takes longer to reach finish weight.
Post a Comment