Dave Stockdale
Sustainability Honcho
Cattle call
SFGate.com
I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while...
I was enjoying a meat-centric meal at a local restaurant a few days ago with some friends when someone brought up the film Food, Inc. So we ended up discussing the dark side of meat production while enjoying our nicely prepared pastured beef short ribs. If you also saw this film, then what follows will not be new. And yet, it never hurts to remind ourselves of some of the issues and concerns.
As the aforementioned movie revealed for many previously unaware folks, the idyllic vision we have of cows grazing on open fields under blue skies is not a very realistic picture of cattle production today. While many cattle in the United States do begin their lives on relatively small, family-owned ranches with ample amounts of pasture or rangeland, the vast majority of cattle end their lives in large, overcrowded feedlots. In many feedlots, their diet switches to grains and other products such as flesh, bones, hooves, and feathers of other animals, chicken or cattle manure, stale pastry, ground cardboard, and even plastic hay.
Cattle are a ruminant (or cud-chewing) species, as are goats, sheep, and bison. Their specialized digestive system has evolved over millennia to digest the biodiversity of grasses found on pastureland. When ruminant animals such as cattle are fed a grain-based diet, it can cause them a range of health problems, so they are often administered antibiotics to fend off the diseases they might contract under these conditions. The cattle are also often given growth hormones to make them grow bigger faster.
Not all grain-fed cattle are subject to the worst feedlot conditions. Some feedlots are less crowded and are managed without the use of antibiotics or hormones. Some facilities feed their cattle only grain and other foodstuffs (a typical diet might include barley, corn, wheat, soy meal, sugar beet pulp, cane molasses and hay) without all the fillers and questionable by-products. Feedlots producing certified organic dairy products or beef must follow guidelines that include feeding the animals certified organic grain, avoiding antibiotics and hormones, and providing some access to pasture.
In addition to the effects on animal health, the feedlot system also has some serious environmental impacts. Overcrowding of animals produces excessive amounts of manure that cannot be recycled on site. Runoff from this manure creates an excess of nitrogen in watersheds. Methane gas produced by cattle contributes to global warming. The large-scale industrial production of grain to feed the animals includes high usage of pesticides and herbicides and the widespread use of genetically engineered seed.
The feedlot system also has social consequences. As commodity prices for beef and dairy products are driven down, small family-owned ranches are often driven out of business. Those that do manage to stay afloat generally work on contract with a few large corporations, greatly limiting their autonomy, financial security, and opportunities for growth. Feedlots themselves can be toxic environments for the workers who operate them and smelly eyesores for the communities that house them. Slaughterhouses can be dangerous for workers when speed and production are considered more important than safety.
Keeping cattle on open rangeland or pasture from birth until death is an alternative to the feedlot system. Because cattle eat the diet that is biologically appropriate for them and their digestive systems, the health problems outlined above are eliminated. The negative environmental and social consequences are lessened too. Research is also showing that there are also significant health advantages to eating dairy products or beef from pasture-raised animals.
I don't eat animal protein every day, but when I do, I buy ingredients or seek out menu items that feature pastured animals whenever possible. It's my way of supporting a production system that I believe is better for me, the animals, and the planet. That fact that these products also taste better and have a more interesting texture to me is an added bonus!
This blogger from San Francisco learned everything about modern livestock production from watching the movie Food Inc. and is eager to share it. Line by line you can go through this article and see how this mockery of a film has misinformed consumers. For example, according to this guy every feedlot is overcrowded. On more than one occassion he refers to overcrowded feedlots. He also mentions that most family farmers and ranchers that raise beef are doing it for a large corporation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The next time you don't feel like sharing your story consider the idea that this guy is eager to share your story for you and it's apparent that he's not concerned about the truth.
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Media Overhyping Organics
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Report Backs Non-Conventional Practices
National council report backs sustainable food
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Study Shows Grain Fed Beef Healthier Than Grass Fed
Study Shows Ground Beef From Grain-Fed Cattle Healthier Than Grass-Fed
05/27/2010 10:49AM
COLLEGE STATION – Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study.
Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid.
However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.”
"We wanted to see from this study if product from pasture-fed and corn-fed cattle had different effects on LDL or HDL cholesterol," Smith said. "We looked at the scientific literature and could not find any justifications for the statement that pasture-fed beef is better for you. All we found were rat studies in which they were fed omega-3 fatty acids, so we wanted to know if this applied to beef from grass-fed cattle."
"There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle," Smith said. "We did see many positive effects in men that consumed ground beef from corn-fed cattle. The ground beef from the USDA Prime cattle increased HDL cholesterol and LDL particle diameter. Both effects are protective against cardiovascular disease. The Prime ground beef also decreased insulin, so it may have some protective effect against type II diabetes." Read More
The biggest thing this study should provide for us is the fact that all beef is healthy for us. It doesn’t do anyone any good to vilify the type of beef our neighbor raises. It doesn’t matter what type of food you are raising, if you have to make up scary stories and spew misinformation about other products in order to promote your own, then you have a problem. All of us have preferences about what we like and don’t like but in the end we have a huge responsibility to provide food and fiber for the planet.
05/27/2010 10:49AM
COLLEGE STATION – Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study.
Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid.
However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.”
"We wanted to see from this study if product from pasture-fed and corn-fed cattle had different effects on LDL or HDL cholesterol," Smith said. "We looked at the scientific literature and could not find any justifications for the statement that pasture-fed beef is better for you. All we found were rat studies in which they were fed omega-3 fatty acids, so we wanted to know if this applied to beef from grass-fed cattle."
"There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle," Smith said. "We did see many positive effects in men that consumed ground beef from corn-fed cattle. The ground beef from the USDA Prime cattle increased HDL cholesterol and LDL particle diameter. Both effects are protective against cardiovascular disease. The Prime ground beef also decreased insulin, so it may have some protective effect against type II diabetes." Read More
The biggest thing this study should provide for us is the fact that all beef is healthy for us. It doesn’t do anyone any good to vilify the type of beef our neighbor raises. It doesn’t matter what type of food you are raising, if you have to make up scary stories and spew misinformation about other products in order to promote your own, then you have a problem. All of us have preferences about what we like and don’t like but in the end we have a huge responsibility to provide food and fiber for the planet.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Modern Ag Can Feed The World
Attention Whole Foods Shoppers
Stop obsessing about arugula. Your "sustainable" mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions.
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG MAY/JUNE 2010
From Whole Foods recyclable cloth bags to Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions. We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change -- and childhood obesity, too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare while chopping our certified organic onions, the hope that we can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western consumers. Food has become an elite preoccupation in the West, ironically, just as the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion.
Helping the world's poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today's cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food "sustainable" -- in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most. Even our understanding of the global food problem is wrong these days, driven too much by the single issue of international prices. In April 2008, when the cost of rice for export had tripled in just six months and wheat reached its highest price in 28 years, a New York Times editorial branded this a "World Food Crisis." World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries, where "there is no margin for survival." Now that international rice prices are down 40 percent from their peak and wheat prices have fallen by more than half, we too quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike, and the number is even larger now, thanks in part to last year's global recession. This is the real food crisis we face.
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world. Read More
This article does a nice job of highlighting how modern agriculture has the ability to wipe out hunger on this planet. While most of us take our everyday meals for granted, many people on this planet have never enjoyed that luxury. They are still farming the way we did in this country 100 years ago. The scary thing is that we have several people who have made themselves famous by advocating that the best thing the US could do is go back to farming that way. We are fortunate to provide so many choices for our consumers but the mentality that eliminating our technological advances in agriculture is the only way to go will only lead to more hungry people. ~Troy
Stop obsessing about arugula. Your "sustainable" mantra -- organic, local, and slow -- is no recipe for saving the world's hungry millions.
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG MAY/JUNE 2010
From Whole Foods recyclable cloth bags to Michelle Obama's organic White House garden, modern eco-foodies are full of good intentions. We want to save the planet. Help local farmers. Fight climate change -- and childhood obesity, too. But though it's certainly a good thing to be thinking about global welfare while chopping our certified organic onions, the hope that we can help others by changing our shopping and eating habits is being wildly oversold to Western consumers. Food has become an elite preoccupation in the West, ironically, just as the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion.
Helping the world's poor feed themselves is no longer the rallying cry it once was. Food may be today's cause célèbre, but in the pampered West, that means trendy causes like making food "sustainable" -- in other words, organic, local, and slow. Appealing as that might sound, it is the wrong recipe for helping those who need it the most. Even our understanding of the global food problem is wrong these days, driven too much by the single issue of international prices. In April 2008, when the cost of rice for export had tripled in just six months and wheat reached its highest price in 28 years, a New York Times editorial branded this a "World Food Crisis." World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that high food prices would be particularly damaging in poor countries, where "there is no margin for survival." Now that international rice prices are down 40 percent from their peak and wheat prices have fallen by more than half, we too quickly conclude that the crisis is over. Yet 850 million people in poor countries were chronically undernourished before the 2008 price spike, and the number is even larger now, thanks in part to last year's global recession. This is the real food crisis we face.
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.
If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming. And that means learning to appreciate the modern, science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest of the world. Read More
This article does a nice job of highlighting how modern agriculture has the ability to wipe out hunger on this planet. While most of us take our everyday meals for granted, many people on this planet have never enjoyed that luxury. They are still farming the way we did in this country 100 years ago. The scary thing is that we have several people who have made themselves famous by advocating that the best thing the US could do is go back to farming that way. We are fortunate to provide so many choices for our consumers but the mentality that eliminating our technological advances in agriculture is the only way to go will only lead to more hungry people. ~Troy
Monday, August 31, 2009
Boulder's Farming Debate
Hysterics win a round in farm debate
By Vincent Carroll
Posted: 08/29/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
The Luddites won a round this week in Boulder County.
Yes, the science-challenged activists who fear genetically modified crops succeeded in keeping GM sugar beets from being grown by six farmers on open space land — at least for the time being.
If I seem to harp on this conflict, having laid out the farmers' case some weeks ago, it's because the overall stakes are so large. Fear-mongers have retarded the adoption of GM crops elsewhere, too, even when their advantages are clear.
GM crops are mostly prohibited in Europe, for example, because of popular fear of "Frankenstein foods." Then again, Europeans used to execute witches by the thousands, too, with roughly the same degree of supporting evidence. Some things never change.
The Boulder farmers were so shocked by the raw emotion of opponents that they eventually asked commissioners to postpone a decision. Naturally the commissioners obliged. You wouldn't expect three beleaguered officials to tell the hysterics to take a hike, would you?
Never mind that county staff recommended the commission approve the applications, or that genetically modified corn is already grown on open space there. For that matter, the county already slashes rates for leaseholders willing to switch to organic farming, open space director Ron Stewart told me recently. What's next: outright payments to accelerate the transition?
Read More
It’s been an interesting debate unfolding in Boulder, CO as of late. Land that is owned by the county and being farmed by local farmers is at the center of the discussion. There are some very vocal people leading a charge that will only allow organic food to be grown on the land. The typical, un-supported arguments have been being used by the pro-organic crowd. For me, it boils down to an elitist argument. Even with the lowest cost of food in the world, many families struggle to make ends meet and have enough food to eat. There is no doubt that organic food is more expensive. So if these vocal elitists have their way, it would make food more expensive and less available to working families. As a person that has been involved in growing food all of my life so that everyone has something to eat, it would be hard for me to accept that.
By Vincent Carroll
Posted: 08/29/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
The Luddites won a round this week in Boulder County.
Yes, the science-challenged activists who fear genetically modified crops succeeded in keeping GM sugar beets from being grown by six farmers on open space land — at least for the time being.
If I seem to harp on this conflict, having laid out the farmers' case some weeks ago, it's because the overall stakes are so large. Fear-mongers have retarded the adoption of GM crops elsewhere, too, even when their advantages are clear.
GM crops are mostly prohibited in Europe, for example, because of popular fear of "Frankenstein foods." Then again, Europeans used to execute witches by the thousands, too, with roughly the same degree of supporting evidence. Some things never change.
The Boulder farmers were so shocked by the raw emotion of opponents that they eventually asked commissioners to postpone a decision. Naturally the commissioners obliged. You wouldn't expect three beleaguered officials to tell the hysterics to take a hike, would you?
Never mind that county staff recommended the commission approve the applications, or that genetically modified corn is already grown on open space there. For that matter, the county already slashes rates for leaseholders willing to switch to organic farming, open space director Ron Stewart told me recently. What's next: outright payments to accelerate the transition?
Read More
It’s been an interesting debate unfolding in Boulder, CO as of late. Land that is owned by the county and being farmed by local farmers is at the center of the discussion. There are some very vocal people leading a charge that will only allow organic food to be grown on the land. The typical, un-supported arguments have been being used by the pro-organic crowd. For me, it boils down to an elitist argument. Even with the lowest cost of food in the world, many families struggle to make ends meet and have enough food to eat. There is no doubt that organic food is more expensive. So if these vocal elitists have their way, it would make food more expensive and less available to working families. As a person that has been involved in growing food all of my life so that everyone has something to eat, it would be hard for me to accept that.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Organic Food Not More Nutritious
Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown, review finds
9:11 AM, July 29, 2009
-- Melissa Healy
A comprehensive review of research comparing the nutritional content of food that was organically raised with food produced with the use of synthetic pesticides has found no significant differences between the two. Conducted by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the study is the first to bring a heated debate over the value of organic food to a rigorous conclusion. It is published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
"Our review indicates there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organic over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority," said Alan Dangour of the London School's Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
Surveying 50,000 studies conducted over 50 years, the authors focused on 55 that met their standards of scientific rigor. The studies that led to the group's controversial conclusions covered a wide range of crops and livestock that are raised and marketed under organic standards. For 10 out of 13 food crops studied, the researchers found no significant differences. Where they did find differences, those were attributed to differences in fertilizer use (say, the use of nitrogen vs. phosphorus) and the ripeness level at which the crops were harvested. The authors judged the differences observed "unlikely" to "provide any health benefit" to consumers. Read More
There are many claims that organic food likes to make. One of them is that their food is more nutritious. It turns out that isn’t true. I get accused of being anti-organic but the truth is that I don’t care what type of food you eat, I just care that consumers aren’t being fooled into spending a bunch of extra money on something that isn’t any better. And that is the case with organic in my opinion. I don’t think it’s better, it’s just different. It has drawbacks that must be seriously considered by consumers.
9:11 AM, July 29, 2009
-- Melissa Healy
A comprehensive review of research comparing the nutritional content of food that was organically raised with food produced with the use of synthetic pesticides has found no significant differences between the two. Conducted by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the study is the first to bring a heated debate over the value of organic food to a rigorous conclusion. It is published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
"Our review indicates there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organic over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority," said Alan Dangour of the London School's Public Health Intervention Research Unit.
Surveying 50,000 studies conducted over 50 years, the authors focused on 55 that met their standards of scientific rigor. The studies that led to the group's controversial conclusions covered a wide range of crops and livestock that are raised and marketed under organic standards. For 10 out of 13 food crops studied, the researchers found no significant differences. Where they did find differences, those were attributed to differences in fertilizer use (say, the use of nitrogen vs. phosphorus) and the ripeness level at which the crops were harvested. The authors judged the differences observed "unlikely" to "provide any health benefit" to consumers. Read More
There are many claims that organic food likes to make. One of them is that their food is more nutritious. It turns out that isn’t true. I get accused of being anti-organic but the truth is that I don’t care what type of food you eat, I just care that consumers aren’t being fooled into spending a bunch of extra money on something that isn’t any better. And that is the case with organic in my opinion. I don’t think it’s better, it’s just different. It has drawbacks that must be seriously considered by consumers.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Is Organic Better for Environment?
Con: Conventional farming produces more with eco-friendly new methods
By Amy Kaleti
Monday, April 6, 2009
AMES, Iowa — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Can eating organic help combat global warming?
The public is clearly becoming more interested in lifestyle choices that decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Whether the choice to buy organic food will help that worthy cause, however, is far from a simple question.
Nitrogen fertilizer is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is nitrogen fertilizer produced from fossil fuel sources, but its production requires an energy intensive process.
Because of this, organic systems that instead rely on manure and cover crops for nitrogen input typically use less energy. On the other hand, when organic production is compared to low-input conventional farming, research has found similar energy efficiency ratios.
As energy costs rise, more and more conventional farmers are increasing their use of manure fertilizers. Without knowing the input practices of the specific farms that produced the food items, it would be difficult to compare the energy efficiency of organic versus conventional products. Read More
It’s important that consumers start hearing the truth about the benefits of certain methods of growing food. This article tries to do some of that. There are a lot of buzz words in the food business today, like “natural”, “cage-free”, and “free-range”, but “organic” seems to be the word of the day lately. Many consumers have wrongly been convinced that anything that is organic is good. Nothing could be further from the truth. Organic only refers to the production method used to raise the commodity in question. It doesn’t make it healthier, better for the planet, or taste better. If producers choose to use organic methods to raise their crops and livestock, I think that s absolutely fine, but shame on them if they are lying to their consumers about the benefits.
By Amy Kaleti
Monday, April 6, 2009
AMES, Iowa — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Can eating organic help combat global warming?
The public is clearly becoming more interested in lifestyle choices that decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Whether the choice to buy organic food will help that worthy cause, however, is far from a simple question.
Nitrogen fertilizer is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is nitrogen fertilizer produced from fossil fuel sources, but its production requires an energy intensive process.
Because of this, organic systems that instead rely on manure and cover crops for nitrogen input typically use less energy. On the other hand, when organic production is compared to low-input conventional farming, research has found similar energy efficiency ratios.
As energy costs rise, more and more conventional farmers are increasing their use of manure fertilizers. Without knowing the input practices of the specific farms that produced the food items, it would be difficult to compare the energy efficiency of organic versus conventional products. Read More
It’s important that consumers start hearing the truth about the benefits of certain methods of growing food. This article tries to do some of that. There are a lot of buzz words in the food business today, like “natural”, “cage-free”, and “free-range”, but “organic” seems to be the word of the day lately. Many consumers have wrongly been convinced that anything that is organic is good. Nothing could be further from the truth. Organic only refers to the production method used to raise the commodity in question. It doesn’t make it healthier, better for the planet, or taste better. If producers choose to use organic methods to raise their crops and livestock, I think that s absolutely fine, but shame on them if they are lying to their consumers about the benefits.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Deputy Secy. Announced
Tufts Prof. Merrigan tapped for No 2 USDA post
Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:28pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama chose Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University who helped develop U.S. organic food labeling rules, for the Agriculture Department's No 2 job, the White House said on Monday.
Merrigan, tapped for deputy secretary of Agriculture, was head of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service from 1999-2001 during the Clinton era and helped develop USDA's rules on what can be sold as organic food. As a Senate aide, she worked on the 1990 law that recognized organic farming.
"Sustainable and organic farmers are excited ... that someone who has been associated with these issues her whole career is going to be at that level in the department," said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Hoefner encouraged the Senate to confirm Merrigan for the post.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was confirmed on Jan 20. The deputy agriculture secretary usually oversees day-to-day operations of USDA.
Merrigan, who went to work at Tufts in Boston after serving at USDA, has worked at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture and as a consultant for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization from 1994-99. She worked on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee from 1987-92. She has a doctoral degree in environmental planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Earlier this month, Vilsack said he submitted several suggestions to the White House to fill slots at USDA. Read More
Merrigan is an avid organic food promoter. She literally wrote the federal rules on organic food. It will be interesting to see how she handles her position. Will she use it to promote all types of food production or will she throw conventional producers under the bus in order to promote her own social agenda. For the foodies that were hoping to see Michael Pollan at USDA, it appears as though you got the female version. His unsustainable vision for food production has a voice in the building now.
Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:28pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama chose Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University who helped develop U.S. organic food labeling rules, for the Agriculture Department's No 2 job, the White House said on Monday.
Merrigan, tapped for deputy secretary of Agriculture, was head of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service from 1999-2001 during the Clinton era and helped develop USDA's rules on what can be sold as organic food. As a Senate aide, she worked on the 1990 law that recognized organic farming.
"Sustainable and organic farmers are excited ... that someone who has been associated with these issues her whole career is going to be at that level in the department," said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Hoefner encouraged the Senate to confirm Merrigan for the post.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was confirmed on Jan 20. The deputy agriculture secretary usually oversees day-to-day operations of USDA.
Merrigan, who went to work at Tufts in Boston after serving at USDA, has worked at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture and as a consultant for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization from 1994-99. She worked on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee from 1987-92. She has a doctoral degree in environmental planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Earlier this month, Vilsack said he submitted several suggestions to the White House to fill slots at USDA. Read More
Merrigan is an avid organic food promoter. She literally wrote the federal rules on organic food. It will be interesting to see how she handles her position. Will she use it to promote all types of food production or will she throw conventional producers under the bus in order to promote her own social agenda. For the foodies that were hoping to see Michael Pollan at USDA, it appears as though you got the female version. His unsustainable vision for food production has a voice in the building now.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sustainability and Profitability
Niman Ranch founder challenges new owners
Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
(02-21) 20:05 PST Bolinas - -- Bill Niman built a $65 million empire on a simple idea that revolutionized the food world - that meat could be more than just what's for dinner. It could be raised naturally, humanely and sustainably, better for people and the planet. Niman knew success would take time, but believed his methods would prove profitable.
But in nearly 30 years of existence, despite becoming the darling of high-end chefs and turning the brand into a household name, Niman Ranch never did turn a profit. In fact, it was broke. To save it from Bankruptcy Court, the East Bay company merged last month with its chief investor, Chicago's Natural Food Holdings LLC, and Niman was officially out.
The 64-year-old Bolinas man said he can live with losing the business he built from scratch. But he can't stand quietly by, he says, while the new owners fundamentally change the brand that influenced an entire food movement. He refuses to eat their products. Read More
The reason that I am including this article is because of Niman’s involvement in the Proposition 2 debate in California. They came out and supported this bill which will force people to raise livestock more in line with their thinking. However, is a business really sustainable if they were around for over 30 years and couldn’t turn a profit? Their support of HSUS was also indicative of their ability to run a business because it is quite obvious that HSUS will eventually try to eliminate all animal agriculture. After all, their own people have said that is their goal.
Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
(02-21) 20:05 PST Bolinas - -- Bill Niman built a $65 million empire on a simple idea that revolutionized the food world - that meat could be more than just what's for dinner. It could be raised naturally, humanely and sustainably, better for people and the planet. Niman knew success would take time, but believed his methods would prove profitable.
But in nearly 30 years of existence, despite becoming the darling of high-end chefs and turning the brand into a household name, Niman Ranch never did turn a profit. In fact, it was broke. To save it from Bankruptcy Court, the East Bay company merged last month with its chief investor, Chicago's Natural Food Holdings LLC, and Niman was officially out.
The 64-year-old Bolinas man said he can live with losing the business he built from scratch. But he can't stand quietly by, he says, while the new owners fundamentally change the brand that influenced an entire food movement. He refuses to eat their products. Read More
The reason that I am including this article is because of Niman’s involvement in the Proposition 2 debate in California. They came out and supported this bill which will force people to raise livestock more in line with their thinking. However, is a business really sustainable if they were around for over 30 years and couldn’t turn a profit? Their support of HSUS was also indicative of their ability to run a business because it is quite obvious that HSUS will eventually try to eliminate all animal agriculture. After all, their own people have said that is their goal.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Food Production
Agriculture's next big challenge
By George McGovern and Marshall Matz
January 4, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Iowa's former Gov. Tom Vilsack to be his secretary of agriculture. Vilsack was an excellent choice, but some have criticized the appointment because he supports agricultural biotechnology and commercial agriculture. The critics assume that anyone who holds these views is an enemy of organic farming and sustainable agriculture. We disagree.
Norman Borlaug, a Nobel laureate and father of the Green Revolution, has concluded that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than it has in the last 10,000. That is an extraordinary challenge. How does the world do it?
First, we must recognize that organic, sustainable and commercial agriculture play a part in feeding the world. There is an important role for organic agriculture and, indeed, some consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods that are certified as organic. Sustainable agriculture, defined generally as farming that adheres to practices more sensitive to the environment, is also of great importance. Commercial agriculture is still the backbone of the economy in most rural counties across the nation. And commercial agriculture is a big factor in offsetting our unfavorable balance of international trade.
We do not yet see the yields with organic agriculture that would feed a hungry planet of almost 7 billion people. During the recent presidential campaign, Obama, to his credit, often talked of supporting American agriculture, from the small sustainable farms that market to the community to the large commercial farms that feed the world. He was exactly correct. The Department of Agriculture should be supporting research into organic and sustainable agriculture. Clearly, we must be more sensitive to the relationship between agriculture and the environment. But to criticize someone for supporting all sectors of agriculture seems shortsighted. Read More
I have had to read this article a couple of times just to see what I am missing. We don’t normally see someone come out and say that the primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. It’s incredible that we need to say that, but it’s apparent that many people don’t realize this fact. The other line from this story that every consumer needs to understand is that we need to get beyond ideology and use science. We can either spend the next several decades arguing about food and then not have enough, or our society can choose to get down to business and utilize technology, science, and America’s ag producers and double our food production by 2050.
By George McGovern and Marshall Matz
January 4, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Iowa's former Gov. Tom Vilsack to be his secretary of agriculture. Vilsack was an excellent choice, but some have criticized the appointment because he supports agricultural biotechnology and commercial agriculture. The critics assume that anyone who holds these views is an enemy of organic farming and sustainable agriculture. We disagree.
Norman Borlaug, a Nobel laureate and father of the Green Revolution, has concluded that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than it has in the last 10,000. That is an extraordinary challenge. How does the world do it?
First, we must recognize that organic, sustainable and commercial agriculture play a part in feeding the world. There is an important role for organic agriculture and, indeed, some consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods that are certified as organic. Sustainable agriculture, defined generally as farming that adheres to practices more sensitive to the environment, is also of great importance. Commercial agriculture is still the backbone of the economy in most rural counties across the nation. And commercial agriculture is a big factor in offsetting our unfavorable balance of international trade.
We do not yet see the yields with organic agriculture that would feed a hungry planet of almost 7 billion people. During the recent presidential campaign, Obama, to his credit, often talked of supporting American agriculture, from the small sustainable farms that market to the community to the large commercial farms that feed the world. He was exactly correct. The Department of Agriculture should be supporting research into organic and sustainable agriculture. Clearly, we must be more sensitive to the relationship between agriculture and the environment. But to criticize someone for supporting all sectors of agriculture seems shortsighted. Read More
I have had to read this article a couple of times just to see what I am missing. We don’t normally see someone come out and say that the primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. It’s incredible that we need to say that, but it’s apparent that many people don’t realize this fact. The other line from this story that every consumer needs to understand is that we need to get beyond ideology and use science. We can either spend the next several decades arguing about food and then not have enough, or our society can choose to get down to business and utilize technology, science, and America’s ag producers and double our food production by 2050.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Locavores
'Locally grown' food sounds great, but what does it mean?
By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
Virginia farmer Rod Parker can walk into a grocery store 10 miles from his farm, 40 miles from it and even 100 miles from it and see his fresh produce marketed as "locally grown."
Some retailers even consider "locally grown" to be something produced a day's drive from the store, he says. Meanwhile, "I'm sure consumers think it's grown right down the road," says the owner of Parker Farms.
Nationwide, retailers from Wal-Mart to Whole Foods are increasingly devoting more shelf space to "locally grown" products including such things as fresh produce and Thanksgiving turkeys. Whole Foods, for one, now spends almost 22% of its produce budget on locally grown products, up from 15% four years ago, it says.
The "locally grown" label is part of retailers' push to tap into consumer desires for fresh and safe products that support small, local farmers and help the environment because they're not trucked so far. At least one consumer survey has showed that whether something is locally grown is now more important than whether it is organic (which many local products are not).
Read More
When producers can direct market their products to consumers it not only allows them to make that personal contact with them, but it normally let’s them get a better return on their hard work. However, this model of food production isn’t practical in all areas of this country. If everyone were forced to eat locally, several of the foods that my family enjoys would be nearly impossible to get. This in turn would make it difficult for us to eat a balanced diet year round. It is imperative for consumers to realize that not everything can be grown everywhere.
By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY
Virginia farmer Rod Parker can walk into a grocery store 10 miles from his farm, 40 miles from it and even 100 miles from it and see his fresh produce marketed as "locally grown."
Some retailers even consider "locally grown" to be something produced a day's drive from the store, he says. Meanwhile, "I'm sure consumers think it's grown right down the road," says the owner of Parker Farms.
Nationwide, retailers from Wal-Mart to Whole Foods are increasingly devoting more shelf space to "locally grown" products including such things as fresh produce and Thanksgiving turkeys. Whole Foods, for one, now spends almost 22% of its produce budget on locally grown products, up from 15% four years ago, it says.
The "locally grown" label is part of retailers' push to tap into consumer desires for fresh and safe products that support small, local farmers and help the environment because they're not trucked so far. At least one consumer survey has showed that whether something is locally grown is now more important than whether it is organic (which many local products are not).
Read More
When producers can direct market their products to consumers it not only allows them to make that personal contact with them, but it normally let’s them get a better return on their hard work. However, this model of food production isn’t practical in all areas of this country. If everyone were forced to eat locally, several of the foods that my family enjoys would be nearly impossible to get. This in turn would make it difficult for us to eat a balanced diet year round. It is imperative for consumers to realize that not everything can be grown everywhere.
Monday, July 28, 2008
No Difference Between Milk
Study Backs Up rbST Supporters’ Claims on Milk Labeling
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 12:45pm.
Differences Not ‘Biologically Meaningful’ in Three Types of Labeled Milk
A new scientific study published in the July issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims, according to a news release this week from the Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science.
Prompted by the recent trend in food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk (including milk from cows treated with rbST or recombinant bovine somatotropin), rbST-free milk and organic milk.
While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured,” a claim that supporters of rbST in the dairy industry have been making from the start of the controversy over milk labeling. Read More
Just as we have been told all along, there is no difference in the milk from cows exposed to different management styles. After traveling to both coasts two weeks ago and talking to consumers along the way, words like “hormones” have negative a connotation regardless of the science and truth. Regardless of whether you as a producer decide to adopt certain technologies, educating consumers on the truth about the technologies available to feed a growing population is a story we all need to be telling.
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 12:45pm.
Differences Not ‘Biologically Meaningful’ in Three Types of Labeled Milk
A new scientific study published in the July issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims, according to a news release this week from the Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science.
Prompted by the recent trend in food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk (including milk from cows treated with rbST or recombinant bovine somatotropin), rbST-free milk and organic milk.
While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured,” a claim that supporters of rbST in the dairy industry have been making from the start of the controversy over milk labeling. Read More
Just as we have been told all along, there is no difference in the milk from cows exposed to different management styles. After traveling to both coasts two weeks ago and talking to consumers along the way, words like “hormones” have negative a connotation regardless of the science and truth. Regardless of whether you as a producer decide to adopt certain technologies, educating consumers on the truth about the technologies available to feed a growing population is a story we all need to be telling.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Tastes like Chicken
Forget free-range - the tastiest chickens are the ones in cages
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST /07/2008
Food scientists assessed the quality of birds raised in a variety of conditions and found those that were intensively farmed had the best flavour, while those reared under organic guidelines were the least tasty.
Their findings contradict claims by campaigners who insist that organic and free-range chickens produce tastier, healthier meat because they have more freedom to move around and are given better food.
A panel of 10 taste experts sampled meat from 120 cage-reared, maize-fed, organic or free-range birds. They found the cage-reared chicken meat the least acidic, though it had a less attractive colour than other types. Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at Bristol University's school of veterinary science, said: "In general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system." Read More
Some animal rights activists have used the argument that the meat is better from birds that are raised outside, however this study disagrees. If some producers prefer to raise birds in a cage free system that is perfectly fine, but it is imperative that we all work together to defeat the ban on cages that Californian’s will be voting on this fall. Producers should have that choice.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST /07/2008
Food scientists assessed the quality of birds raised in a variety of conditions and found those that were intensively farmed had the best flavour, while those reared under organic guidelines were the least tasty.
Their findings contradict claims by campaigners who insist that organic and free-range chickens produce tastier, healthier meat because they have more freedom to move around and are given better food.
A panel of 10 taste experts sampled meat from 120 cage-reared, maize-fed, organic or free-range birds. They found the cage-reared chicken meat the least acidic, though it had a less attractive colour than other types. Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at Bristol University's school of veterinary science, said: "In general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system." Read More
Some animal rights activists have used the argument that the meat is better from birds that are raised outside, however this study disagrees. If some producers prefer to raise birds in a cage free system that is perfectly fine, but it is imperative that we all work together to defeat the ban on cages that Californian’s will be voting on this fall. Producers should have that choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)