Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Scientists point way to greener pastures

New Union of Concerned Scientists report finds grass-raised beef healthier

Posted by Mark Winne (Guest Contributor) at 8:02 AM on 08 Mar 2006

The latest health, diet, and environmental news all came from one place yesterday: the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Union's report -- "Greener Pastures: How grass-fed beef and milk contribute to healthy eating" -- finds that grass-fed cows produce meat and milk lower in unhealthy fats and higher in beneficial fatty acids, such as Omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), than grain-fed livestock. The report also notes that grass-fed livestock farming methods do a better job of protecting water, air, and the communities that support family farms.

For those of us who routinely argue in favor of sustainable food production, the report doesn't provide any shocking revelations. Smaller herds of animals that are treated humanely, allowed to move about freely, and eat what nature intended -- grass, not grain -- are naturally going to produce healthier food. So how is it that we've reached the point where we need a team of Ph.Ds and a respected research institution to prove it?

Carefully hidden from the view of the 99% of us who aren't farmers lies the coiled serpent we call the industrial food system. In depopulated and increasingly desperate rural communities across America, remaining locals and immigrant workers have been forced into a kind of modern servitude to factory dairy, hog, cattle, and poultry farms. It is from these places that most of our food is produced today.

Slip past the security gate of Don Oppliger's Land and Cattle Feedlot in eastern New Mexico and you'll see 35,000 head of beef cattle. Confined to small dusty pens, they eat nothing but a rolled corn flake ration until they're sent to the slaughterhouse. The constant shuffling of hooves raises a bacteria-laden dust cloud that's carried by the prevailing winds into west Texas. At one end of the complex sits a giant lagoon which catches the operation's wastewater, chemicals, urine, antibiotics, and other effluvia. A tour of the feedlot requires you to roll up the truck windows tightly to keep the flies out. In the narrow strip of ground that separates the fencing from the feedlot's service roads lie the carcasses of dead cows (a.k.a. "downers"), their eyes bugged out, tongues dangling, bellies swollen in the summer heat.

While none of Oppliger's cattle will taste a blade of grass, at least they are outdoors. By comparison, indoor factory hog farms confine their animals 20,000 at a time to low-ceilinged warehouses only 100 feet in length. They generate an odor so intense it would knock a buzzard off a crap wagon. According to Anita Poole, legal counsel for the Kerr Center, an Oklahoma organization that's fought that state's capitulation to the hog industry, "The average Joe Blow who might stumble into a hog facility would never want to eat pork again."

Texas County, Oklahoma was home to 11,000 hogs in 1990, but thanks to the Seaboard Corporation and all-too-willing local officials, the county now hosts over a million hogs. Because of contaminated water run-off from the hog farms, both groundwater and surface water quality have declined. Even worse, the Ogallala Aquifer upon which the region depends for its water is being rapidly depleted. The Oklahoma Water Resource Board reported that water levels in many Texas County wells have dropped 50 to 100 feet over the last 30 years, due in large part to high water demand created by factory hog operations and the irrigated farm land that supports them.

Got Milk? Got Problems!

Got milk? Eat Taco Bell cheese? Slurp Yoplait Yogurt? Chances are increasing every day that the main ingredient for these products comes from New Mexico, now the nation's seventh largest and fastest growing dairy state. Concentrated in the state's southeast quadrant, New Mexico' factory dairy farms have increased their herd size at least five-fold in the last 10 years. And along with this increase has come a severe rise in groundwater contamination (about 60% of the state's dairy wells exceed allowable nitrate standards), air pollution (the asthma rate for this region of the state is nearly three times higher than the state average), and the cost of community services (expenses for schools, social services, police, and prisons have grown rapidly).

If you happen to be cruising down a New Mexico highway, you're likely to encounter a billboard paid for by one of the state's dairy associations that modestly proclaims the goodness of milk. The scene is of a small herd of black-and-white Holsteins grazing contentedly on very green grass with a lovely red barn in the background. If those cows were alive and really from New Mexico, they'd probably think they had died and gone to Vermont.

A real scene from one of the state's factory dairy farms would be decidedly less pleasing. The picture would be of thousands of cows slithering about in steel pens, amidst dust and manure, without a stem of grazeable grass for miles around. No frolicking about on mellow pasture for these girls, no sir; it's in and out of the 100-cow milking parlor two or three times per day until the age of 2, at most 3, when they are then sent off to the hamburger factory. In addition to regular doses of antibiotics, they will be given artificial bovine growth hormones that stimulate milk production beyond their natural limits.

When you pick up a gallon of organic or sustainably produced milk in the supermarket and say, "Zowee! This is $5.49; I can get the regular stuff for $2.89," you should know what you're paying for -- and not paying for. Smaller herds of cows spending some if not all of their lives on grass, and not pumped up with growth hormones, produce a more costly milk than factory farms. And who pays for the asthma victim's long-term health care, the contaminated water, and the escalating local school expenditures? Not the factory farm dairies that may be the cause, and not consumers who are simply grateful for cheap milk. When these costs are paid at some indefinable point in the future, they are paid by the victims, the taxpayers and, of course, the environment.

The End Game?

Dr. Charles Benbrook is a former executive director of the Board of Agriculture for the National Academy of Sciences. His professional work includes studies of the dairy industry, whose growth west of the Mississippi he finds "very perplexing." Among his comments regarding large, western dairy farms: "If the dairy industry in the Southwest was forced to pay the real cost of water, it would quickly move to the Upper Midwest and Northeast." When I asked him what he thought about the future of the Southwest dairy industry, he said that it was "patently unsustainable because in not less than five years, but surely no more than 20, the dairy waste stream will overwhelm the absorptive capacity of the local environment."

The American Public Health Association (APHA) has said essentially the same thing. In a 2004 resolution, APHA said

Considering the health and economic impacts on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) workers ... children and CAFO neighbors from exposure to large concentrations of manure ... dust, toxins, microbes, antibiotics and pollutants ... APHA urges federal, state and local governments to impose a moratorium on new CAFOs until additional scientific data ... have been collected.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' report has brought us one step closer to understanding the human health benefits of a more traditional form of livestock raising that respects the land, water, air, and animals. At the same time, the form of agriculture proponents tout as "modern" but we critics scorn as "industrial" continues to demonstrate that it lives beyond the capacity of natural systems to support it.

As consumers who want what's best for our bodies, we may have to spend a little more on food products that support smaller scale, sustainable farms. As citizens who want clean air and water, and can see the value of viable farming communities, we may need to raise a little hell with our policymakers. Shop like your life depends on it, but vote like the lives of others depend on it.

Animal Rights/Human Health v. Ecosystems

While everything said here is correct, you left out the most ecologically important point: cattle & sheep grazing in the western U.S. is extremely ecologically destructive.  These animals are not native, nor anything like the native ungulates in either behavior or population, and have turned our western grasslands into deserts.  At least cattle kept indoors won't do this, nor will their "constant shuffling of hooves raise[] a bacteria-laden dust cloud that's carried by the prevailing winds."  The best solution is to completely remove cattle and domestic sheep from the west.  As consumers, we should all boycott beef and lamb, two totally unnecessary foods that Americans eat way too much of anyway, until those animals are raised in ways that are not ecologically destructive AND are humane.

Jeff Hoffman
Cattle and the US west

Jeff,
I think what you're talking about is intensive over-grazing. Cattle given plenty of room to graze actually keep pastures from becoming deserts. Granted that cattle thus raised can't supply beef or milk at present rates of consumption.

Victual Reality
Thanks for this!

Great Post!

I just wanted to add that even some large portion of those cattle who start their life in the pasture end up at a feedlot for "finishing."

While to some this may be slight more karmically appealing, this doesn't change the fact that it's inhumane, ecologically destructive, and economically degrading (for rural communities of course, not the owners).

One hurdle to overcome here is that the average palate is accustomed to corn-fed beef.  Grass fed and finished beef just tastes different.  The growing popularity and refinement of grazing techniques has done away with the consistency problems (in a marketing sense) that grass fed beef had no so long ago, but it just tastes different, I think better, but different nonetheless.  On-farm grain finishing by local producers may still be a viable and sane option, and cows can remain healthy while eating some(!) grain.

To follow up on the other posts, the other (possibly larger) hurdle to overcome is the fact that per capita beef consumption will need to drop pretty dramatically for feedlots to disappear.

Anyway, thanks for the post.
Go meet a farmer and shake her/his hand, then put some money directly in it!  Thank your farmer and respect your dinner.

Andy

tell it on the mountain!!

Man, I wish this story would appear on prime-time TV. I have a hard time convincing people that this is really happening, and I find that most people really don't want to know where their food comes from (so they don't have to feel guilty, I guess).

I would add a couple things- first, eating meat 2-3 times a day is something only Americans do, and is likely to blame for many of our health problems (aside from those caused by antibiotics and hormones). It takes far more resources per calorie to produce meat than it does to eat the food being fed to cattle. We could feed a lot of starving humans with the grain being wasted on meat production, without causing further damage to our ecosystems.

Second, the reduced prices that feedlots offer America (at great cost to the environment AND world hunger) are making it impossible for small farmers to survive. Their land is being sold off for development (most of it speculative) because they can't compete with feedlots.

It's easy for us to help improve this situation- eat less meat and either find a farmer's market or join a CSA. That also reduces the fuel used to bring the food to your kitchen.

a liberal in redsville

Overgrazing

Tom,
No, I was referring to all cattle and sheep in the west.  See "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough" by Nancy Ferguson and/or "Welfare Ranching" by George Wuerthner and/or "The Western Range Revisited"
by Debra L. Donahue.  As I said, cattle are not native, and the western grasses cannot tolerate being grazed much, nor being tromped on by such heavy animals.  Ranchers also employ some very anti-environmental tactics, like killing predators that would normally keep ungulates from lounging by creeks or streams, erecting fences, etc.  All of this contributes to the harm, but there is no more ecologically correct number of cattle per acre than there is nuclear bombs per city.  Your statement sounds like cattle industry propaganda.  What is your source?

Jeff Hoffman
Rotational grazing

http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/A3529.PDF  (beware PDF, takes time to load)

"In Wisconsin, graziers averaged about $200 more per cow net farm income than confinement dairy farms..."

A program on Wisconsin Public Television about the new wave of farmers using toyayional grazing was an eye opener.  It was about a gamily actually going back into the family business of dairy farming, rather than the trend of farms selling out to corporate farming.

What nade it possible?  No huge overhead in the form of loans for chemical fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, farm equipment, huge buildings, heating costs, feed costs..and on and on.  This farm featured rotational grazing and a winter break from milking, giving the family a much needed vacation every year.

The gap in production didn't hurt the economics, because the lower costs all around more than made up for it.  The only expensive part of the operation was a modern two stall milking parlour.

Manure was recycled right in the field where the cows spread it.

And the best part for the economics? After a few years of clean, chemical free operation these farms can sell organic dairy products, claiming a premium price.  With organic cheese making added, as some family farms have gone to, the economics beat agribizz farming by 10 miles.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Useful links

GRACE Factory Farm Project
Sustainable Table
The Meatrix (the original)
The Meatrix 2

-Mike

Now that the world is flat,

things get more complicated. For example, Argentina has the highest consumption of beef per capita in the world. My daughter spent last summer in Paraguay. The family she stayed with ate beef three times a day. She hardly saw a vegetable. Here is a link describing what is happening in the beef and milk world from a global perspective. The average American consumes 10 pounds of coffee, 70 pounds of beef ,and 4000 pounds of gasoline annually.

That difference in price you noted is astounding. That is almost double the cost. Imagine doubling the cost of all food. It would hardly make a dent in our budget, but because all human societies have a wealth gradient, it would nail those at the low-end big time, as usual. Now, lets assume everyone buys shade grown coffee as well and pays the real unsubsidized price for biofuels. Not pretty. Grass fed beef is essentially a compromise between one form of beef production and just swearing off beef. I wonder which is easier to accomplish, convince people to buy grass fed beef or convince them to eat less beef? Maybe a combination. American consumption of beef is way down from twenty years ago.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Shill for the cattle industry

Jeff Hoffman wrote: "Your statement sounds like cattle industry propaganda."

Yeah, I'm a shill for the cattle industry. Trouble is, where's my paycheck?
More soon.
Tom

Victual Reality

Clarification

Tom,
I didn't mean to imply you're a shill for the cattle industry.  What I meant was that you seem to have been misled by its propaganda.  This is a very powerful and wealthy industry that hires "scientists" to convince people that cattle grazing is good for the land, just as the Bush administration uses "scientists" to convince people that global warming doesn't exist or, if it does, that it's natural and not human-caused.

The harms caused to the western U.S. by cattle and sheep grazing are massive and extensive, but also require a good amount of research in order to understand them.  If your sources come from those who support or are supported by the industry, you have no way to know what's really going on.  The only native ungulates similar to cattle were bison, and their habitat was east of the Rocky Mountains, with a few rare exceptions of very small herds.

Jeff Hoffman

Sarcasm

Yeah, Tom, you're just not smart enough to know when you're being fooled.  Some day you'll learn...

Andy
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks