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?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)