Why is Big Ag Bad?

As the great-grandchild of European immigrants, I am extremely proud of my ancestors’ ambitions to start a new life in America, the land of opportunity. My grandpa and grandma started their small family restaurant in Kansas City in the 1960s and with hard work eventually expanded to a larger venue. Before long they had two restaurants, the original in Kansas City and a new shop in Lake Ozark, Mo., and Ken Baker’s Restaurant became a hotspot for families and some of Kansas City’s best fried chicken.

It seems as if bigger is better, right? My grandparents, along with many other business owners, are heralded for managing their stores successfully, growing and changing with the times, and expanding their enterprise. However, it appears that farm and ranch families are not held to the same standards as many other industries and embracing technology, sustaining a livelihood and improving efficiency are only selectively celebrated. "Big Ag", the term anti-efficiency activists like to use, is bad.

For example, does society condemn Coca-Cola for being big? Or is Whole Foods publicly denigrated for commandeering the organic market? Michelin, Goodyear and Firestone, for their huge tire empires, are never reprimanded for their firm grasp on the tire industry. Why is it ok to be profitable, self-sufficient and efficient in nearly every other industry in the world but not food?

Bo Stone, one of the U.S.F.R.A. Faces of Farming of Ranching, recently shared his thoughts on this paradox on CNN’s Eatocracy blog and on World Food Day, October 24, the Food Dialogues panel focused on answering that very question. Panelists included the executive director of the Center for Science in Public Interest, a Bloomberg news reporter, food pundits and farmers.

In agriculture, the viewpoints are varied and information is commonly misconstrued but the efforts of MBA grads are often not unnoticed. I encourage all of those involved in agriculture to read Bo’s piece, watch the Food Dialogues video and critically evaluate how you can convey that "Big Ag" isn’t bad.

 

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~

 

Disclaimer: I wrote this for the Masters of Beef Advocacy newsletter that went out earlier this week but I liked it so much I had to share it here too. It's applicable to more than just MBA grads!

Slaughter Plants and Rendering Facilities - Different but Mutually Beneficial

I'm a huge fan of The Office -- the Ninja and I own all the seasons on DVD and I am fairly adept at whipping out a Michael Scott quote in the middle of a conversation. One of the many reasons I love the show is that on the show Dwight is a beet (yes, beet. not beef) farmer so from time to time they make agricultural references about farming or slaughter. I've posted about it before here.

Last week, Dwight talked about his office co-workers not knowing the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering plant and I thought that most people are probably unaware so here we go.

Slaughter and Rendering Plant 101

Beef carcasses in a slaughter plant in South Africa 

that I toured during a study abroad experience

A slaughter plant is a facility where animals that are at an appropriate market weight are sent to be processed into retail cuts of meat. There are numerous plants throughout the United States to accommodate the different species of livestock animals. For example, in southwest Kansas there are slaughter plants that receive cattle from the surrounding feedlots and from the panhandle of Oklahoma.

In northwest Missouri the pork slaughter plant is positioned so that it can accept pigs from all different areas of the corn belt. And there are even processing plants for lambs and goats in places such as Colorado, Montana and Michigan. There are currently no horse slaughter plants in the U.S. -- that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Of course, we can't forget about poultry plants. There are a ton of them in the southern U.S. where a large percentage of poultry broiler farms are - Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina etc.
There are even plants that can do more than one specie and did you know there are slaughter plants for bison and elk? I thought that was pretty cool.

So what's the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering facility? A slaughter plant breaks down the whole carcass into cuts of meat, whereas a rendering facility produces a variety of by-products. There are two types of rendering facilities - independent and integrated. An independent plant is one that picks up grease, blood, feathers and offal (internal organs and entrails) for further processing and development. Integrated facilities are physically connected to the slaughter plant and operate in conjunction with each other. The by-products of slaughter are used to make several essential products that fall into two categories: edible and inedible.
 Below is a list of what types of products fall under each area.
 -- Inedible: tallow and grease for livestock feed, blood meal, soap and fatty-acids.
 -- Edible: these plants process fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The only material that goes into these products (which are USDA and FSIS inspected) are fats from the animals carcass.
THERE IS NO BONE OR OTHER INEDIBLE MATERAL THAT ENTERS THE EDIBLE FOOD SUPPLY

Rendering and its subsequent products play a vital role in agriculture - rendered products account for approximately 35% of the fats and oils used worldwide. More than 1/2 of the world's animal fat is produced in North America. Furthermore, rendering is a very efficient way to control environmental pollution. For example, with today's technology it is possible to recycle nearly 100% of inedible poultry raw material. Rendering products also creates competition in the market for animal feeds, preventing producers from being forced to choose between few options that are expensive.

Getting geared up for a slaughter plant tour - I've been fortunate enough to tour plants 

in 5 countries on 4 continents!

If you want more information about the whole process of rendering, check out these links. There is a lot of science and technology behind the whole process - steam, boilers, throughput etc - this is a great resource to find out more about the technicalities if you're interested.

Hope you've learned a lot - I know I did while researching this topic. If you've got questions or comments, shout 'em out!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

P.S. - interested in the difference between harvest and slaughter? Check this out.

If You're Wasting, You Shouldn't Be Whinging

There's a little bit of Australian vocab for you - whinging means to whine, complain, protest, etc. Didn't know you were going to learn about food wastage and vocab today, did you?

Anyhow, several factors led to this blog post - first, there was this article from Drover's. I'll be sort-of summarizing it so if you don't want to read a whole article, you can read a whole blog post. You're welcome.

Secondly, this blog post that I wrote on Monday.

Thirdly, this:

A fridge full of leftovers for two people who couldn't possibly eat said leftovers in a normal amount of time before the food will be unappetizing, stinky and/or unpleasurable to the digestive system.

Hence, this post was born.

Food wastage occurs in a lot of different ways. I'm sure you're thinking, "Buzzard, you idiot. Food wastage occurs when good food is thrown away." Idiot, I am not. Food wastage, and this comes from the Drover's article, varies depending on the setting/income level of the country of origin. For example, my trashcan is an example of how food is wasted in a first-world or developed country. Sometimes, I throw away perfectly good green beans. But I am not going to save four or five bites of canned green beans when the Ninja refuses to finish them (he is my human garbage can). I am a human-being, not perfect. Did you know that up to HALF of the food that is purchased in Europe and the US is thrown away? Half, people. One 8 oz sirloin is thrown away for every pound of steak purchased. I am extremely embarrassed of that fact - one in seven people in the world go hungry every night and we are throwing away 1/2 of our food. If you're not embarrassed, you're part of the problem. Don't come whining to me about not being able to afford food if you throw out 1/2 your grocery cart every week.

However, food wastage in Malawi or a similar less than developed country is different because that loss occurs during harvest, when advanced technology isn't available to yield optimum levels. Wastage also occurs through improper storage or unfortunately, the all too common problem of a lack of infrastructure. This means the food is produced but the roads, government etc are so broken down that the food can't get to the people. Very sad. The more the developed the country, the further down the line the wastage occurs. Here, I drew you a picture:

 

 How about those epic graph drawing skills? Thanks Ag Economics degree, you're coming in handy after all.

The reason this is all very important is of course, that we are projected to have a population of 9.5 billion by 2075. Or if you don't want to look that far into the future, 9 billion by 2050. We are going to need a lot of water, land and other non-renewable resources to feed all these hungry future-people.

Which is where my post from Monday comes in - by cutting down larger cuts of meat we can continue to utilize the efficiency of the beef industry (smaller herds but bigger cattle) without sacrificing any valuable protein to the garbage can. And if science is allowed to prevail and keep making advancements, I believe that the ingenious folks at John Deere, Monsanto, Pioneer etc can find ways to produce more with less.

Of course, it's not just on the shoulders of engineers and beef producers. You, yes you, can help with the whole feed the world mantra. Buying/preparing smaller portions. Saving (and eating) leftovers. Making your kids clean their plates or save their leftovers too (never too young to help the planet). Anyone else have any ideas or suggestions on how to make our food supply more efficient from a consumer stand point?

How's that for tying several different trains of thinking into one post? That was exhausting...

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

p.s. I hope that Jessie Vipham is impressed with my graph and that I have officially kind-of used my Ag Econ degree.

Is Bigger Always Better When It Comes to Steak

Yes and no.

image credit

As Americans, we tend to think bigger is better. More value for the dollar. Efficiency. More for less. That mantra has led to increased farm efficiency, bigger cows and therefore bigger steaks to feed a growing, hungry population.

But do Americans really want bigger steaks?

A recent article on BEEF Magazine's website calls this into question. Americans (or some of us) are striving to eat healthier. Prepare and consume smaller, more diet-friendly portions.

A 3 oz serving of lean beef provides 10 essential nutrients in only 154 calories and is about the size of a deck of cards (thanks Daren Williams and the Masters of Beef Advocacy program). While I personally would like to have more than 3 oz of meat on my plate during dinner, I can see how many people don't want a 16 oz T-bone for dinner every night. This presents a problem for an industry that has shrinking cow herd and has therefore learned how to produce more with less.

To combat the 'problem' (I don't consider efficiency bad) the article talks about taking larger cuts like the ribeye, for example, and breaking it down into more user and diet-friendly portion sizes. Not only does this create more smaller portions out of one cut but it also creates a chance to remove some of the extra bits of fat. Another form of efficiency, in essence.

So what do you think? Are you one who wants all the steak you can get or do you like to keep your plate balanced with smaller portions of meat and equal amounts of whole grains and veggies?

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

I Don't Want to Live Without Meat in 2050

I just read an article on Yahoo! that said the world may be forced into vegetarianism by the year 2050, according to some scientists at the Stockholm International Water Institute in Sweden. Here is a link to the article -- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/vegetarian-2050-190426669.html.

Hell no. I refuse to live in a society where there is no meat. I would starve. Literally. If I didn't die of energy depletion first. 

There's a few things I want to point out on this...

- Cattle spend about 75% of their life eating grass in pastures. In the Flint Hills, where I live, if there were no cattle grazing this land it wouldn't be used. Rolling hills with lots of rock aren't viable for crop production. So putting those acres into crop production isn't realistic.

- Another point that the author makes, who does a very poor job of presenting an unbiased story, is that we can't really produce more food. Wrong! We can produce more food - farmers and ranchers are becoming more productive every year and if legislators in D.C. would listen to producers who have real experience instead of listening to lobbyists, they would know that we can continue to improve our efficiency with science, technology and gasp! the help of GMO's.

- I'd really like to see the study that cites 70% of all water is for agriculture - I want to see how this data is presented. Notice that doesn't say 'animal agriculture' just agriculture in general. Furthermore, I don't know of a cause that is more important than food production that we should be funneling water towards - aside from drinking water. Maybe we should start reusing water from purification plants for water in our toilets, yard spouts, washing machines and dishwashers.

These are just my opinions - but I'd love to hear yours.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Real quick addendum: Cutting meat completely out of production is NOT going to feed the people who are starving in other countries. The infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa needs to improve, for example. There could be 4 tons of food arrive to major societal hubs in food deprived countries but if there is no way for the food to be moved to rural, impoverished areas or if the local government uses food provisions as a way to control people, then all the food aid in the world won't help. There is more than just food production at the center of those issues - it's a web of underlying causes that need to be addressed to stop world hunger.