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.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)