We have been enjoying Chuck II for a few months now, and while we weren't able to compare the taste of Chuck I directly to Chuck II, we have come to a couple of conclusions.
1. What the animal eats has less to do with the taste than the breed of the animal
2. What the animal eats has less to do with the taste than the freshness of the meat
3. Great tasting beef can be had commercially. What is generally not known is the source and how that animal was raised and treated.
The first two points assume that what the animal eats is of good quality and provided in abundance.
On point three, we compared Chuck II's T-bone to a store-bought (and probably grain fed) T-bone. The store bought T-bone was from an independent butcher who is known for high-quality meat. In a blind taste test, there was negligible difference, and even the visual inspection before grilling found negligible differences. What we could not know for sure, however, was the source of the store-bought T-bone, how the animal was treated, what it ate, what kind of antibiotics and/or hormones were administered...basically the history of the animal that is readily available from your farmer.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Chuck Part II, or OD #2
We recently got OD#2, our grass-fed beef steer back from the meat locker. Our second steer was about a month older than our first and almost completely grass fed and 100% hormone and anti-biotic free. Both ODs were mostly black angus.
OD #2's hanging weight was one pound less than OD #1, and his take-home weight was 24 pounds more. We have to consider the take-home weight the same, though, because our weighing process is far from official. There was some variation in pounds of each cut received, but nothing very significant.
What have we learned from these two steers?
It wasn't hard for us to raise a grass-fed steer since we had pasture to spare and already make hay for our main herd. The most difficult part is raising mostly corn-fed animals with a single grass-fed animal. We had to pick Chuck early enough to get him and his mom separated from the regular, corn-eating herd and onto pasture. After weaning, we had to choose an animal of similar size for companionship. Usually we have a cull-cow available, but at times we did not, which meant taking a calf from our background herd, gradually changing its diet to match Chuck's, then gradually changing it back before selling. It'd be easier to have at least two grass-fed animals from the get-go.
It's hard to say if OD#2 required more labor. We certainly had him around longer, but when he was on grass, we just had to make sure he looked healthy. Unlike the rest of the herd, we didn't have to carry buckets of corn around and didn't have to run him through the chute to administer vaccines. We do feel fortunate that he didn't have health problems, unlike OD#1. If health problems had arisen and we were forced to administer medication, our main marketing niche would evaporate. Again, it would be nice to have more than one grass-fed animal, so if this scenario plays out, we could simply shunt the animal into our regular herd.
We haven't done any taste tests yet, but so far OD#1 and OD#2 have dressed out almost identically, as outlined above.
OD #2's hanging weight was one pound less than OD #1, and his take-home weight was 24 pounds more. We have to consider the take-home weight the same, though, because our weighing process is far from official. There was some variation in pounds of each cut received, but nothing very significant.
What have we learned from these two steers?
It wasn't hard for us to raise a grass-fed steer since we had pasture to spare and already make hay for our main herd. The most difficult part is raising mostly corn-fed animals with a single grass-fed animal. We had to pick Chuck early enough to get him and his mom separated from the regular, corn-eating herd and onto pasture. After weaning, we had to choose an animal of similar size for companionship. Usually we have a cull-cow available, but at times we did not, which meant taking a calf from our background herd, gradually changing its diet to match Chuck's, then gradually changing it back before selling. It'd be easier to have at least two grass-fed animals from the get-go.
It's hard to say if OD#2 required more labor. We certainly had him around longer, but when he was on grass, we just had to make sure he looked healthy. Unlike the rest of the herd, we didn't have to carry buckets of corn around and didn't have to run him through the chute to administer vaccines. We do feel fortunate that he didn't have health problems, unlike OD#1. If health problems had arisen and we were forced to administer medication, our main marketing niche would evaporate. Again, it would be nice to have more than one grass-fed animal, so if this scenario plays out, we could simply shunt the animal into our regular herd.
We haven't done any taste tests yet, but so far OD#1 and OD#2 have dressed out almost identically, as outlined above.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Grass-Fed Beef
Believe it or not, there exists an organization called the American Grassfed Association. Interestingly, they don't like the USDA's guidelines for grass-fed beef because it "leaves loopholes for cattle to spend time in confined feeding areas and to be fed [corn] silage" (Angus Beef Bulletin, Feb 2010). This is another example of why it pays to not put all of your trust in a certain label, and more importantly, to know your farmer.
The AGA has its own qualifications for grass-fed beef:
Confinement means keeping an animal in an area where forages and crops are not grown during the growing season. Chuck did spend a lot of his life in such a described area, though it is maintained well: he was never up to his belly in mud or crowded by other animals. It wouldn't take much to open the gate to allow Chuck access to pasture year-round, but after the grass is dormant or covered by snow, we suspect he'd spend most of his time in the confinement area anyway, seeking shelter from inclement weather.
So, Chuck met one of those standards in its entirety (no hormones), and sort of met the no confinement standard. Were we to do this process again, we would think seriously about not giving Chuck any vaccinations unless absolutely needed. We would probably also omit feeding decox.
We are certainly not trying to label Chuck "grass-fed," but the fact that our club met 1.5 of these standards--and would probably have no problem meeting three of the four--again makes the case for common sense guiding us to healthy food. Common treatments between all labels and standards also begin to emerge, the big three being no confinement, antibiotics, or hormones.
The AGA has its own qualifications for grass-fed beef:
- total forage diet (excluding mother's milk)
- no confinement
- no non-therapeutic antibiotics
- no added hormones
Confinement means keeping an animal in an area where forages and crops are not grown during the growing season. Chuck did spend a lot of his life in such a described area, though it is maintained well: he was never up to his belly in mud or crowded by other animals. It wouldn't take much to open the gate to allow Chuck access to pasture year-round, but after the grass is dormant or covered by snow, we suspect he'd spend most of his time in the confinement area anyway, seeking shelter from inclement weather.
So, Chuck met one of those standards in its entirety (no hormones), and sort of met the no confinement standard. Were we to do this process again, we would think seriously about not giving Chuck any vaccinations unless absolutely needed. We would probably also omit feeding decox.
We are certainly not trying to label Chuck "grass-fed," but the fact that our club met 1.5 of these standards--and would probably have no problem meeting three of the four--again makes the case for common sense guiding us to healthy food. Common treatments between all labels and standards also begin to emerge, the big three being no confinement, antibiotics, or hormones.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Location of Different Cuts of Beef
If you are wondering which part of Chuck your rib eye, chuck roast, or sirloin came from, check out Certified Angus Beef's (CAB) website. The "Beef Cuts" section features an interactive beef cuts chart along with some helpful cooking tips. This link also resides under the "quick links" section of this blog.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Chuck In the Freezer
We finally have the last pieces of Chuck weighed, inventoried, and stored in the deep freeze. He looks a little different than he did a few months ago:
His hanging weight came in at 766 lbs (347.4 kg). If we divide that by 63%, we arrive at a slaughter weight around 1,216 lb (551.5 kg), which is about what we were aiming for.
I unofficially weighed each group of cuts to arrive at a total, take-home weight of 498 lbs (226 kg). This works out to about 65% of Chuck's hanging weight, which, according to the University of Minnesota's figures, is a yield typical between "choice, very fat" and "choice, average" for a side of beef.
If we stay with our $1,000 estimated cost of raising Chuck, add the $431 processing fee, and divide the sum by our take-home weight, our total cost of Chuck comes to $2.87 / lb. If we use an EUR conversion rate of .7156, that works out to about 4.53 EUR / kg. We tried to think of a way to assign each cut a cost per pound, but our numbers do not take into account demand. It stands to reason that the fewer the cuts, the higher the price, but there is always the exception of liver, tongue, heart, and other organs. We would probably have to survey the percentage differences at a meat counter to truly assign values, but that's more work that we are willing to put forth at the moment.
If you'd like a breakdown (Excel spreadsheet) of Chuck's numbers, please fire off an e-mail to us at npovsbeefsteer@gmail.com.
His hanging weight came in at 766 lbs (347.4 kg). If we divide that by 63%, we arrive at a slaughter weight around 1,216 lb (551.5 kg), which is about what we were aiming for.
I unofficially weighed each group of cuts to arrive at a total, take-home weight of 498 lbs (226 kg). This works out to about 65% of Chuck's hanging weight, which, according to the University of Minnesota's figures, is a yield typical between "choice, very fat" and "choice, average" for a side of beef.
If we stay with our $1,000 estimated cost of raising Chuck, add the $431 processing fee, and divide the sum by our take-home weight, our total cost of Chuck comes to $2.87 / lb. If we use an EUR conversion rate of .7156, that works out to about 4.53 EUR / kg. We tried to think of a way to assign each cut a cost per pound, but our numbers do not take into account demand. It stands to reason that the fewer the cuts, the higher the price, but there is always the exception of liver, tongue, heart, and other organs. We would probably have to survey the percentage differences at a meat counter to truly assign values, but that's more work that we are willing to put forth at the moment.
If you'd like a breakdown (Excel spreadsheet) of Chuck's numbers, please fire off an e-mail to us at npovsbeefsteer@gmail.com.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
RIP Chuck
We took Chuck to the Minden Meat Market on January 4th for "processing." He went willingly, though we had to scoop snow 6 feet deep and 5 feet long that had drifted our loading chute shut. Unfortunately for Chuck, the ride up was really, really cold. Temperatures were hovering around zero degrees F, (-17.8 C), and with a 50 mph ( 80.5 kmh) wind chill, his ride was probably the most miserable part of his life.
The Minden Meat Market has three stalls, and when we got there, the other two were already occupied. All of the animals, including Chuck, were quiet. I didn't get to stay to watch Chuck meet his maker as I had hoped, but I did chat briefly with his executioner. Aside from some blood and feces on his apron, he seemed very ordinary.
Chuck is now ready to pick up, which we will be doing tomorrow barring any major difficulties. We don't know what his hanging weight is, yet, but we are very anxious to see how he looks in all of his various forms.
The Minden Meat Market has three stalls, and when we got there, the other two were already occupied. All of the animals, including Chuck, were quiet. I didn't get to stay to watch Chuck meet his maker as I had hoped, but I did chat briefly with his executioner. Aside from some blood and feces on his apron, he seemed very ordinary.
Chuck is now ready to pick up, which we will be doing tomorrow barring any major difficulties. We don't know what his hanging weight is, yet, but we are very anxious to see how he looks in all of his various forms.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Natural According to the Agricultural Marketing Service
Follow this link to read the press release for the "United States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims, Naturally Raised Claim for Livestock and the Meat and Meat Products Derived From Such Livestock."
In a nutshell, the AMS proposes three core criteria for animals to meet eligibility for the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim. They are based on 44,000 comments from consumers, veterinarians, trade and professional associations, non-profit organizations, national organic associations, as well as consumer, agriculture, and animal advocacy organizations, retail and meat product companies, food service, livestock producers, and allied animal industries.
1) Raised without growth promotants and 2) antibiotics
3) Never been fed mammalian or avian by-products
We have the first point covered.
On point two, the AMS thinks treatment for coccidiosis, as long as it's in the form of ionophores, not sulfonamides, should be allowable. Corid falls within the AMS's parameters. They also think vaccines should be allowable, though it seems there is still debate among the commentaors on both treatements. See "Use of Antibiotics, Growth Promotants, Health Treatments, and Pesticides and Chemicals" on the third page, bottom of third column for more discussion. As we all know, not using pesticides on or around Chuck is one of our guidelines.
We are also conforming to the third point, which has always been standard practice in our book.
Interestingly, our NPOV came to most of these conclusions on our own over a year ago, as outlined in the Guidelines section. We think this goes a long way to show that consumers are capable of deciding for themselves what is natural, and that common sense is our most valuable tool.
This is not to say we don't need the AMS; an official source and definition is necessary for any branded product. The proposed rule, however, is just that: proposed. It has not yet been accepted. We think, however, that the AMS is on the right track with their reliance on moderation.
What do you think?
In a nutshell, the AMS proposes three core criteria for animals to meet eligibility for the Naturally Raised Marketing Claim. They are based on 44,000 comments from consumers, veterinarians, trade and professional associations, non-profit organizations, national organic associations, as well as consumer, agriculture, and animal advocacy organizations, retail and meat product companies, food service, livestock producers, and allied animal industries.
1) Raised without growth promotants and 2) antibiotics
3) Never been fed mammalian or avian by-products
We have the first point covered.
On point two, the AMS thinks treatment for coccidiosis, as long as it's in the form of ionophores, not sulfonamides, should be allowable. Corid falls within the AMS's parameters. They also think vaccines should be allowable, though it seems there is still debate among the commentaors on both treatements. See "Use of Antibiotics, Growth Promotants, Health Treatments, and Pesticides and Chemicals" on the third page, bottom of third column for more discussion. As we all know, not using pesticides on or around Chuck is one of our guidelines.
We are also conforming to the third point, which has always been standard practice in our book.
Interestingly, our NPOV came to most of these conclusions on our own over a year ago, as outlined in the Guidelines section. We think this goes a long way to show that consumers are capable of deciding for themselves what is natural, and that common sense is our most valuable tool.
This is not to say we don't need the AMS; an official source and definition is necessary for any branded product. The proposed rule, however, is just that: proposed. It has not yet been accepted. We think, however, that the AMS is on the right track with their reliance on moderation.
What do you think?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Survey Says...Natural!
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Chuck at 16 months old.
7/28/2009
Chuck recently developed a hunchback, so we had the vet come out to take a look at him. It turns out Chuck is recovering from a bout of mild pneumonia, and his feces showed high populations of coccidiosis. These are two separate conditions.
We have been increasing Chuck's corn intake over the last few months. He's up to about 10-15 pounds per day, though that is a rough estimate as he has always had bunk mates. At one point, he was up around 20-25, but he started to act sluggish, which we initially attributed to too much corn. With our most recent diagnosis, however, his depression could also be attributed to pneumonia, which can be brought on by a change in diet. Earlier this year, we had a stray heifer wander in to our herd. She ended up staying and sharing a pen with Chuck, since they are about the same size. Our theory is that, even though Chuck was vaccinated for BRD last year, he picked up the disease from the stray.
The vet wasn't too concerned with the pneumonia, but he did suggest feeding some Corid to take care of the coccidiosis problem. As you can see from the previous link, feeding Corid according to the label still qualifies beef as "natural," assuming we follow label directions.
We are thinking about two things now and need your input:
1) Should we feed Corid? We are estimating Chuck's weight to be a short 1,000 lbs (454 kg), probably around 950 (431 kg). He is now 16 months old, two months away from ideal slaughter age, so he would have to gain 250 pounds (113 kg) in 60 days, or 4 pounds (1.8 kg) a day, to reach ideal slaughter weight. If we feed Corid, we would gain some efficiency, though 4 lbs per day is pretty lofty.
2) Should we include a feed higher in protein? Chances are good that Chuck isn't getting anywhere near the amount of protein he needs to really convert those carbs into pounds. One potential remedy is to include dried distillers grains, or DDG, a by-product of making ethanol. It sounds like we'd need to feed about 4 pounds per day, with a 40 pound (18.1 kg) bag costing around $20. This would cost about $60/month. Bagged DDG is certainly not the cheapest source, but unless we buy it by the truck, our options are limited.
In the meantime, we separated Chuck from the stray heifer and put him in with three cows and their calves. We intend to put Chuck in a pen with only one other cow, about the same size, when a pen opens up. This should happen this weekend when our town cows head off to the rainbow barn.
Total cost of Chuck to date: $692.28 *
* A few words about the total cost of Chuck. One thing that becomes immediately clear is how difficult it is to keep track of expenses for one particular animal. Chuck has always had at least one bunk mate, so we don't know exactly how much he's eating.
The second thing that becomes clear is how difficult it is to raise just one beef steer. Everything costs more for one animal. The cost above does not include the last vet visit. It won't be astronomical, but we won't be able to spread the trip cost across several animals. If we end up feeding DDGs, we'll probably buy bags instead of bulk. When we truck Chuck to slaughter, all of the trucking cost will go to him instead of being spread out over several animals. We can't lump Chuck in with the other animals when it comes to feeding protein or spraying for flies. When you get right down to it, it's a lot like raising a 4-H animal. We're keeping our labor and management costs at the same level as the rest of the herd, but it certainly wouldn't be unfair to increase them.
Chuck recently developed a hunchback, so we had the vet come out to take a look at him. It turns out Chuck is recovering from a bout of mild pneumonia, and his feces showed high populations of coccidiosis. These are two separate conditions.
We have been increasing Chuck's corn intake over the last few months. He's up to about 10-15 pounds per day, though that is a rough estimate as he has always had bunk mates. At one point, he was up around 20-25, but he started to act sluggish, which we initially attributed to too much corn. With our most recent diagnosis, however, his depression could also be attributed to pneumonia, which can be brought on by a change in diet. Earlier this year, we had a stray heifer wander in to our herd. She ended up staying and sharing a pen with Chuck, since they are about the same size. Our theory is that, even though Chuck was vaccinated for BRD last year, he picked up the disease from the stray.
The vet wasn't too concerned with the pneumonia, but he did suggest feeding some Corid to take care of the coccidiosis problem. As you can see from the previous link, feeding Corid according to the label still qualifies beef as "natural," assuming we follow label directions.
We are thinking about two things now and need your input:
1) Should we feed Corid? We are estimating Chuck's weight to be a short 1,000 lbs (454 kg), probably around 950 (431 kg). He is now 16 months old, two months away from ideal slaughter age, so he would have to gain 250 pounds (113 kg) in 60 days, or 4 pounds (1.8 kg) a day, to reach ideal slaughter weight. If we feed Corid, we would gain some efficiency, though 4 lbs per day is pretty lofty.
2) Should we include a feed higher in protein? Chances are good that Chuck isn't getting anywhere near the amount of protein he needs to really convert those carbs into pounds. One potential remedy is to include dried distillers grains, or DDG, a by-product of making ethanol. It sounds like we'd need to feed about 4 pounds per day, with a 40 pound (18.1 kg) bag costing around $20. This would cost about $60/month. Bagged DDG is certainly not the cheapest source, but unless we buy it by the truck, our options are limited.
In the meantime, we separated Chuck from the stray heifer and put him in with three cows and their calves. We intend to put Chuck in a pen with only one other cow, about the same size, when a pen opens up. This should happen this weekend when our town cows head off to the rainbow barn.
Total cost of Chuck to date: $692.28 *
* A few words about the total cost of Chuck. One thing that becomes immediately clear is how difficult it is to keep track of expenses for one particular animal. Chuck has always had at least one bunk mate, so we don't know exactly how much he's eating.
The second thing that becomes clear is how difficult it is to raise just one beef steer. Everything costs more for one animal. The cost above does not include the last vet visit. It won't be astronomical, but we won't be able to spread the trip cost across several animals. If we end up feeding DDGs, we'll probably buy bags instead of bulk. When we truck Chuck to slaughter, all of the trucking cost will go to him instead of being spread out over several animals. We can't lump Chuck in with the other animals when it comes to feeding protein or spraying for flies. When you get right down to it, it's a lot like raising a 4-H animal. We're keeping our labor and management costs at the same level as the rest of the herd, but it certainly wouldn't be unfair to increase them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Luxury Beef
Why do we eat beef?
It occurred to me the other day while I forked some hay up for Chuck that we really don't need beef to survive anymore. Our predecessors almost certainly did, though, especially in the dead of winter when fruits, vegetables, and grain weren't readily available and the stored food was running low. In the spirit of waste not, want not, even an old milk cow was a candidate for eating.
After paying more attention to the recent grass-fed phenomena and addressing the topic in recent conversations, the general consensus seems to be that, not too long ago, grass-fed beef was cheap beef. Put another way, a family raising their own beef might fatten their animal on cheaper food stuffs (grass) over a longer time period because corn or other sources of high carb/calorie food was too expensive.
Based on consumer demand, the Iowa Beef Industry Council put together a few target traits for beef carcass. Included in that list are: slaughter age 16 months or younger and feedlot average daily gain of 3.5 lbs (1.6 kg) or higher. We suspect grass-fed beef is hard pressed to fall into either of these categories, and we can can probably agree that taste demands traditionally drive how an animal is fed and treated.
So are we, as a club, raising Chuck for luxury or necessity? We've carried out this project with a set of priorities different from commercial beef: we put the life of the animal before the taste of the beef. Are we prepared to accept lower quality beef in exchange for a better life for the animal? Or will we quit eating beef altogether if we can't have the tasty characteristics we've come to expect?
It's too late for Chuck to fall into the IBC's 16-month category, and by our estimates, he's in the 2 lb/day average daily gain category. Does this mean he'll be tougher, leaner, and perhaps a little less palatable than prime? Is a more natural way of feeding worth compromising the luxury of beef?
It occurred to me the other day while I forked some hay up for Chuck that we really don't need beef to survive anymore. Our predecessors almost certainly did, though, especially in the dead of winter when fruits, vegetables, and grain weren't readily available and the stored food was running low. In the spirit of waste not, want not, even an old milk cow was a candidate for eating.
After paying more attention to the recent grass-fed phenomena and addressing the topic in recent conversations, the general consensus seems to be that, not too long ago, grass-fed beef was cheap beef. Put another way, a family raising their own beef might fatten their animal on cheaper food stuffs (grass) over a longer time period because corn or other sources of high carb/calorie food was too expensive.
Based on consumer demand, the Iowa Beef Industry Council put together a few target traits for beef carcass. Included in that list are: slaughter age 16 months or younger and feedlot average daily gain of 3.5 lbs (1.6 kg) or higher. We suspect grass-fed beef is hard pressed to fall into either of these categories, and we can can probably agree that taste demands traditionally drive how an animal is fed and treated.
So are we, as a club, raising Chuck for luxury or necessity? We've carried out this project with a set of priorities different from commercial beef: we put the life of the animal before the taste of the beef. Are we prepared to accept lower quality beef in exchange for a better life for the animal? Or will we quit eating beef altogether if we can't have the tasty characteristics we've come to expect?
It's too late for Chuck to fall into the IBC's 16-month category, and by our estimates, he's in the 2 lb/day average daily gain category. Does this mean he'll be tougher, leaner, and perhaps a little less palatable than prime? Is a more natural way of feeding worth compromising the luxury of beef?
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?
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Guidelines
So far, we've had four guidelines/requirements put forth by our members:
1) A happy cow herd
2) Pesticide free
3) No hormones
4) Know your farmer
These are not set in stone, nor are they all inclusive. However, we will proceed using these four unless we hear any good reasons to do otherwise.
Happy Cows
Post your ideas about what makes a happy cow; for our part, we have three main areas plus some miscellany that contribute to a healthy (happy) cow.
Living Area
It’s hard to tell the size of the pens from the posted pictures, but suffice it to say all of our animals have room to roam and even run short distances. (If you'd like exact dimensions, let us know). During the winter months, all of our animals are confined to their pens. This changes in the summer when the herd has access to pasture, usually three acres at a time.
Mud is always an issue, especially during winter and spring thaws. To combat this ongoing problem, we have raised areas within the pens that dry out quickly, concrete around stock tanks, feed bunks, and hay rows for cattle to stand on, and in the spring, we try to turn the cattle out to pasture as quickly as conditions will allow.
Food and Water
We try to raise the best quality alfalfa that we can since this is where our herd will get the majority of their protein, roughage, and nutrients. With good quality hay, the need for supplements is minimal if even necessary. We test our hay for nutrients at Midwest Laboratories to ensure nutritional quality. All animals have access to this hay free choice, every day, all year long.
We feed corn according to conditions and the purpose of each animal. Calves get the most corn per pound since they need energy to grow. Cows tend to get less, since they are only maintaining, though their requirements soar during the last months of pregnancy. All animals require more energy during the winter, so our fed corn volume increases substantially during the winter months.
Fresh well water is available in stock tanks for each pen all year long. During the winter, we use propane heaters to keep the tanks thawed.
General Treatment
All of the food, water, and space are available here on the farm, so we do not have to move our animals during the year. Moving animals is inherently stressful, though once they get used to any kind of routine, their stress levels decrease. The main times of stress during the year are birth and tagging, weaning, vaccination, and loading. We do not use cattle prods, and to the extent that we can, we move animals slowly and deliberately. If we plan far enough ahead, sometimes we can even trick the animals into moving themselves.
We do use electric fence. While this may seem cruel, one of the surest ways to stress an animal is to chase it around. One of the keys to avoiding this kind of chasing is to prevent animals from escaping in the first place. After one or two shocks, the animals know where their boundaries are and generally stay put. As many of you know, these shocks are not terribly painful; the surprise is mainly what keeps animals (including humans) in line. An electric fence also prevents cows from rubbing, reaching through, and generally beating up our fences, reducing fence maintenance and labor costs.
Herd temperament is also a major issue, not only for the health of our cows, but also for our own health and safety. You can read about the benefits of herd temperament here.
The article focuses more on profitability, but it highlights the need to treat your animals well.
Temple Grandin (thanks, Val) has pages of ideas on the proper treatment of animals. We already employ some of her ideas, but we have started referencing her work for better ideas and more improvements.
Miscellaneous
The most stressful part of a steer’s life will probably be the transport to the butcher and subsequent slaughter. We should be able to transport a single animal with relatively little stress, and I am currently looking into methods of slaughter. Please keep your ideas for slaughter coming.
Pesticide Free
Here again is an area where we’d like to hear some input from our members. The main pesticides we currently use are for fly control. Aside from the biting, annoying nature of flies, they can also spread pink eye.
During peak fly season, we spray malathion
Pollan describes how Polyface Farms
We could raise chickens to execute this job more consistently, but it will require more manual labor. Keep in mind there are only two employees directly carrying out the manual labor for our beef herd. We would be most interested to hear about alternative means of fly control.
While not a pesticide, we do include 1.4gr/lb of Chlortetracycline in our mineral supplement during the summer. On the most basic level, Chlortetracycline is an antibiotic that helps keep our animals healthy, especially during dusty conditions that can cause respiratory problems.
We do not usually use mineral supplements during the winter months since our hay provides all of the necessary nutrients. We will have non-medicated mineral on hand for our beef steer, however, if the need for supplements arises.
No Hormones
Traditionally, we implant our calves with Ralgro. You can find information on this hormone here. We will exclude implanting for our beef steer, but in the meantime, please post your reasons why we should or should not employ this practice.
For our part, the little quote at the beginning of Ralgro’s website sums up our reasons for using it: “Few…practices are more cost effective or have a higher return on investment than…growth promoting implants.”
Visit the Utah Beef Council's page here to read their presentation, "Myths and Facts About Beef."
Here is an excerpt of Myth #7:
"Growth-promoting hormones have been used in recent years to improve the animal's ability to more efficiently utilize the nutrients that it consumes in order to produce more muscle and less fat. The hormones are administered by placing an implant (about the size of a pencil eraser) under the skin in the middle of the animals ear. This location is used because the ears are not offered for human consumption.
Animals that are implanted with these hormones grow as much as 15 to 20 percent faster than untreated animal. In addition, the cattle produce more lean meat and less fat than cattle raised without hormones. But is the beef safe for human consumption? The scientific evidence worldwide overwhelmingly indicates there is no hazard to human health resulting from the consumption of beef from animals implanted with growth-promoting hormones."
This snippet just begins to scratch the surface of growth hormones. We do implant most of our animals, but Chuck will NOT be implanted. As he ages, we can measure his weight gain against his fellow implanted herd mates, though comparing and contrasting the quality of his beef will be up to the eaters to determine.
Know Your Farmer
http://www.beefsteer.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Pictures of the Herd and their Environment
If you want a picture 
that you don't see here,
let me know.
A view of the farmyard from the south, Dec '07.
A few members of the main herd (bull in back)...
...eating hay...
...along with the dog.
...along with the dog.This year's group of calves...
...up close.
The herd on pasture, April '08.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Background
Val posted the following in our book club forum:
"...we'll need to know the details of how Maple Edge's steers are raised just as general practice."
Our main cow herd of roughly 25 resides here at Maple Edge Farm near Hastings, Iowa. Our herd is closed, meaning we raise our own replacement heifers instead of buying them. We mainly do this to avoid importing health problems, but it serves a dual purpose here of knowing exactly where our cows (food) comes from. The only animal that we buy is our bull, which we have recently been buying from Nichols Bulls. Excluding our bull purchases over the years, I can personally vouch that our herd has been closed for over 10 years. Our older employees could probably vouch for many more decades.
Since our herd is closed, we have genetics from several different breeds: Hereford, Charolais, and Angus, to name a few. Our last three bulls have been Angus.
June & July
We turn the bull out with the heifers around Father’s Day—not intentionally; it’s just easier to remember—then with the cows around July Fourth. This means our heifers begin calving in late March and early April, with the rest of the herd following shortly thereafter. Our birth weights vary from 65 lbs (~30 kg) to 100 lbs (~45 kg), the former being a runt and the latter being a bruiser.
Two days after a calf is born, we castrate the males and tag all calves. After that, they live with their mothers and the rest of the herd, nursing (which provides the best source of nutrients) and eventually grazing on pasture. We are mainly a corn and bean operation, so we do not have enough pasture acres to support our herd full time. Therefore, we plant, raise, cut, and bale our own hay to feed to our herd.
July & August
When the pastures start to give out, we set up a creep feeding system for the calves. This basically means they have access to a pen that the cows can’t get into. In this pen they have free-choice hay, corn, water, and access to a smaller pasture. The reason for this becomes clear in early September.
September
We wean the calves from their mothers in early September. This is a particularly stressful time for the calves, which is why we try to prepare them with the creep feeding. We separate the pairs with panel fencing, so they can see, hear, and smell each other, theoretically reducing stress. Both the calves and cows put up a racket for a few days, but after the fourth, the cows have gone back out to pasture, largely forgetting about their pesky kids. This is the moment in time when NPOV’s beef steer will probably diverge from his herd mates.
At weaning time, our calves typically weigh an average of 400 lbs (~181 kg). Their main purpose in life is now to gain about 2 lbs (.91 kg) every day. This requires an enormous amount of calories, which is where corn comes in. Of all feedstuffs, corn provides the most at about 900 calories for every pound. Calorie demand rises as the calves gain weight, so you start to get an idea of how much food they require. Pollan generally pans the use and excessive use of corn in feeding out cattle, so this might be a point of contention.
A few weeks after weaning, our veterinarian comes out for her annual visit to vaccinate, implant, and perform a general checkup.
January
Our calves now hopefully weigh an average of 600 lbs (~272 kg). At this time, we take them to the sale barn. Pollan helps us imagine what might happen to them after that.
"...we'll need to know the details of how Maple Edge's steers are raised just as general practice."
Our main cow herd of roughly 25 resides here at Maple Edge Farm near Hastings, Iowa. Our herd is closed, meaning we raise our own replacement heifers instead of buying them. We mainly do this to avoid importing health problems, but it serves a dual purpose here of knowing exactly where our cows (food) comes from. The only animal that we buy is our bull, which we have recently been buying from Nichols Bulls. Excluding our bull purchases over the years, I can personally vouch that our herd has been closed for over 10 years. Our older employees could probably vouch for many more decades.
Since our herd is closed, we have genetics from several different breeds: Hereford, Charolais, and Angus, to name a few. Our last three bulls have been Angus.
June & July
We turn the bull out with the heifers around Father’s Day—not intentionally; it’s just easier to remember—then with the cows around July Fourth. This means our heifers begin calving in late March and early April, with the rest of the herd following shortly thereafter. Our birth weights vary from 65 lbs (~30 kg) to 100 lbs (~45 kg), the former being a runt and the latter being a bruiser.
Two days after a calf is born, we castrate the males and tag all calves. After that, they live with their mothers and the rest of the herd, nursing (which provides the best source of nutrients) and eventually grazing on pasture. We are mainly a corn and bean operation, so we do not have enough pasture acres to support our herd full time. Therefore, we plant, raise, cut, and bale our own hay to feed to our herd.
July & August
When the pastures start to give out, we set up a creep feeding system for the calves. This basically means they have access to a pen that the cows can’t get into. In this pen they have free-choice hay, corn, water, and access to a smaller pasture. The reason for this becomes clear in early September.
September
We wean the calves from their mothers in early September. This is a particularly stressful time for the calves, which is why we try to prepare them with the creep feeding. We separate the pairs with panel fencing, so they can see, hear, and smell each other, theoretically reducing stress. Both the calves and cows put up a racket for a few days, but after the fourth, the cows have gone back out to pasture, largely forgetting about their pesky kids. This is the moment in time when NPOV’s beef steer will probably diverge from his herd mates.
At weaning time, our calves typically weigh an average of 400 lbs (~181 kg). Their main purpose in life is now to gain about 2 lbs (.91 kg) every day. This requires an enormous amount of calories, which is where corn comes in. Of all feedstuffs, corn provides the most at about 900 calories for every pound. Calorie demand rises as the calves gain weight, so you start to get an idea of how much food they require. Pollan generally pans the use and excessive use of corn in feeding out cattle, so this might be a point of contention.
A few weeks after weaning, our veterinarian comes out for her annual visit to vaccinate, implant, and perform a general checkup.
January
Our calves now hopefully weigh an average of 600 lbs (~272 kg). At this time, we take them to the sale barn. Pollan helps us imagine what might happen to them after that.
A Multi-Part Purpose
Primary, Secondary, & Philosphical
The primary purpose behind NPOV's Beef Steer is to give members an opportunity to establish guidelines for how their food is raised. Quality meat is readily available to all of our members, but after reading "The Omnivores Dilemma," it is clear that how animals are raised, fed, and slaughtered might be cause for concern.
The employees here at Maple Edge Farm are heading up the Novel Point of View Beef Steer project to address these concerns and to provide details of the life of a beef steer from birth to slaughter.
The secondary purpose is education, both for consumers and farmers. We all know how much a pound of hamburger and a pound of New York strip costs at the grocery store, but how much would it cost directly from the farmer? If consumers buy directly from the farmer, what assurances do they have that they are getting what they paid for?
From a farmer’s perspective, how much are we really gaining by implanting calves with hormones? Is the idea of sustainable beef really that unattainable? What kind of liability are we assuming when we exclude the very processes that are meant to keep our food safe?
On a more philosophical level, this beef project is an effort to provide its members an opportunity to tend the resources that sustain them. We encourage everyone to pose, discuss, and answer questions about the food on our plate; we also encourage people to stop by to see their beef steer, to participate in its care, and to share in the ownership of the land.
In his essay The Unsettling of America, Wendell Berry writes about the idea that "as many as possible should share in the ownership of the land and thus be bound to it by economic interest, by the investment of love and work, by family loyalty, by memory and tradition. How much land this should be is a question, and the answer will vary with geogrphy." We hope to provide a portion of this land to our members.
Long Term
Pollan addresses many problems with our current food-supply system, but one that stands out in particular is the problem of sustainability. The idea of sustainability is nothing new, but it is definitely an obscured concept.
The main purpose of this project is to illustrate what exactly goes into providing food for people nation- and world-wide. We have so many people to feed that it is impossible to raise enough food locally to meet this demand, and that demand is rising so rapidly that all of the emphasis has been put on raising lots of cheap food. This begs the questions, "how long can we keep this up, and at what point will this system implode?"Ultimately, any supply of food needs to be sustainable, so the longer term purpose of this project is to examine ways to meet this goal for just one beef steer. As this blog and our process progresses, we'll try to evaluate processes and practices for sustainability.
One final note: nothing about this process claims to be or is aimed toward organic. As we learned in Pollan's book, organic can be a misleading label. We are simply providing information about how your food is raised which, conveniently, is one of the guidelines set forth by our club members.
Maiden Voyage and the Weather
Hello and welcome to the maiden voyage of both NPOV's custom raised beef steer and our feeble attempt at some sort of web presence. We thought a blog might be a convenient place for our members to access information about our steer as well as what is happening here close to its home. Before we get too crazy with details, though, I'll keep this first posting short to see how things go.
Weather will be one of the major factors contributing to our steer's health; try this link to get current weather conditions. You can also investigate Weather Underground to get more information as well as peruse other personal weather stations in the area. We are station MC9229 on the right sidebar.
This is data from a weather station we have set up right across the road, so it's about as local as you can get. You can judge from the comfort of your heated and cooled home how comfortable our steer might be.
As a point of reference, the thermo-netural zone for healthy cattle is between 23 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (-5 and 25 degrees Celsius). Any temperatures outside of that range require more inputs (food energy, supplements, water), and extreme variations can physically hurt our steer. This will probably become more of an issue as we approach slaughter weight during the heat of summer.
Let me know what you think of this format. It seems redundant in light of our NPOV method of posting comments for our books, but perhaps others will want to read about our journey.
Weather will be one of the major factors contributing to our steer's health; try this link to get current weather conditions. You can also investigate Weather Underground to get more information as well as peruse other personal weather stations in the area. We are station MC9229 on the right sidebar.
This is data from a weather station we have set up right across the road, so it's about as local as you can get. You can judge from the comfort of your heated and cooled home how comfortable our steer might be.
As a point of reference, the thermo-netural zone for healthy cattle is between 23 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (-5 and 25 degrees Celsius). Any temperatures outside of that range require more inputs (food energy, supplements, water), and extreme variations can physically hurt our steer. This will probably become more of an issue as we approach slaughter weight during the heat of summer.
Let me know what you think of this format. It seems redundant in light of our NPOV method of posting comments for our books, but perhaps others will want to read about our journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)