responsible agriculture

The argument for beef produced by ranchers.

Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use.

The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that livestock animals make to humanity’s well-being. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:

Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten.

However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating . It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favor of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.

The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly.

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce.
As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if “veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate.”

Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.

There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to “mixed farming,” described below.

The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems.

The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (9). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of “battery farming” and points to future solutions by saying:

Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems.

It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas.
--by Stephen Byrne

It's a herd

Although raising quality beef starts with good grass and clean water, it does involve good stock. We got our start by buying two heifers from what was an Oregon State University range herd. Those two were the first to come onto this land in many generations as it had been a sheep ranch before we bought it. It still is but just it raises both.

To get those first two bred, we leased a bull for enough months to get the job done and from then on, it was a matter of not keeping too many animals for the land.

Last year we were able to lease 50 adjoining acres and the cattle now range farther but it still requires supplemental feed in the winter. We do not raise our own hay and only did it the first year or two we were on this land. Now it's better to have someone else own the expensive equipment and buy the hay. They are fed big round bales which can only be loaded and fed out by tractors-- big tractors. By the end of August there are two barns full of them.

To be honest we are not in this for a big profit or really any profit. We are in it to share our land with cattle and sheep while we live an agrarian lifestyle. Since we reached retirement age, we also aim to not lose money on what we do. If you know many small ranchers you know that can be tough-- especially if you care about the quality of the life your animals lead.

When we keep a cow for breeding, when she has had calf after calf for us, year after year, we let her live out her life here rather than selling her to an auction where her years would have been rewarded by terror and death. If we get an animal old enough that it simply cannot live a good life, we give it a merciful death on the place. Sometimes we give the hamburger to others but sometimes we have concern it might not be healthy enough and we bury the loyal animal on the land where she was born. It's not profitable but it feels moral. And we have a choice as we are not a corporate farm. We are a family operation-- us and the herds.

For those who are familiar with cattle in large corporate operations, this isn't  how ours live. Corporate farms, for convenience and economics, separate the animals into breeding ages and periods. They send to auctions animals that no longer are productive. It's how they have to do it to make money.

Our cattle live in an actual herd of diverse ages where they look out for each other, where they know and protect those in their herd. It's a family in a real sort. If one of them is shipped off, even for a year or two, and returns, the herd greets them. For the ones you see below who got out of the fence, when they were brought back, they had formed their own little herd but they were quickly melted back into the bigger herd-- maybe with a little chastisement. Cows can really chastise if you've ever lived near cattle. If a strange animal is brought in, the herd investigates and makes them prove themselves. It's how a herd is.

Our goal here is to provide a good life for our animals, treat them well but keep them where they belong, which can sometimes be a struggle (yes cattle do want to go over the hill), and then provide quality grass-fed beef for families in our area.

I'll write more about the advantages of grass-fed beef, but for now this has been about what's  good for the animals not necessarily the buyers. On our small ranch, we aim to do right by both.

A grass-fed ranch

Thirty seven years ago we came to this land with the goal of raising cattle and sheep. We had two children with us and although we'd both grown up on farms with similar lifestyles, it was new to us to be the ones owning the land and the animals. There is a lot of responsibility that goes with both.

Now as old folks but still raising cattle and sheep, we find the biggest issue is to educate Americans as to why they want grass-fed meat. If readers here don't live close to us (that's ideal from our perspective), find a grower near you. Your body doesn't need the hormones or antibiotics that are required when animals are clustered together in feedlots.

Most of the world doesn't eat animals raised on grains. But Americans always had that breadbasket; and hence they were told it was the best. It's not either for them or their bodies; so this blog will be about the alternative and why it matters. It will be about the dynamics of a herd like ours and why it is something to think about when you make a choice regarding where you get your hamburger, roasts and steaks.

I will be sharing photos of our herd, how you can get grass-fed meat in our area, what that means, but also other ranches and locations where we know it's available. I know it's not as easy to buy as running down to your grocery store, but unless that grocery store has grass fed meat, and it might, it's worth your while to go direct to the growers. You will save money, get an education, and the guys below will be glad you did.

 

Okay, once in awhile an apple does slip by....