Snowy Cattle & Pasures!

British White Beef Cattle - Super Performance on Grass and in the Feedlot - J.West Cattle Company: Snow in Southeast Texas! Second Year in a Row!

Pending Legislation That Will Impact the Family Farm and Rural Landowners

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) email update yesterday included a call to members to contact their Congressman during this August recess to express their Support and Opposition to critical legislation that will have a huge impact on our economic lives as cattle raisers. I've included links where I could find them, to the actual text of the bills at issue. Perusing the actual text of the bills is enlightening, and something I think we all should do more often in these days of minimal debate and rapid passage of bills which will effect our lives in both Texas and the USA.

SUPPORT

The Affordable Food and Fuel for America Act ". . .would phase out government subsidies for corn-based ethanol over five years and promote the commercial development of second generation biofuels. This legislation would force corn-based ethanol to become commercially viable without the assistance of government dollars and eliminate competition with other commodities that use corn"

In 2008, I blogged on the devastation that I percieve has been and will continue to occur in the USA as a result of the government's blind and dumb subsidy of corn ethanol. Not only is it forever changing the landscape and air quality of states such as Nebraska and Minnesota, it is forever changing the economics of our food supply. In particular to cattle raisers, it has increased the input cost of feedlots to a point of zero profitability at times, and thus the value of our feeder calf crops at market is reduced.

The Family Farm Preservation and Conservation Estate Tax Act(couldn't find a direct link to this bill) ". . .would exempt working farm and ranch land from the death tax, as long as the land is kept in production agriculture. The bill also provides estate tax relief for land under qualified conservation easements." I could find no link to the text of this bill, instead I found references to it being from the 2007/2008 legislative sessions. TSCRA's summation of it's benefits to the continuation of family farms, rather than their liquidation due to death, makes it clear this is a bill we should all want passed.

OPPOSE

The Clean Water Restoration Act ". . .would expand federal control over all wet areas within Texas including stock tanks, drainage ditches, ponds, small and intermittent streams, creek beds, playa lakes and mud holes." The impact of this legislation on every day life in rural America is boundless, and would mire the average family farm, the average hunter or fisherman, in red tape and legalities that will forever change our historical and current concept of private land ownership and freedom to live as we wish on our land.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (the Cap & Trade Bill) ". . .will drastically increase the costs of fuel, electricity, feed, fertilizer, equipment and other production costs necessary to run a successful ranching business. The costs to ranchers far outweigh any benefits this legislation offers."

I absolutely need to read and try to understand for myself the impact of this bill. It is somehow still shrouded in mystery to me despite my obsession with the news. One has the sense that it is the ultimate boogey-man of bills, without even understanding the actual mechanics of its impact on our economy today and in the future. One thing that is abundantly clear, is major corporations such as General Electric stand to benefit hugely from the passage of this bill.

British White Heifer Shown at South Texas State Fair

A British White heifer is included in the first Spring South Texas State Fair in Beaumont, Texas. Previously a fall show for many years, this transition to spring seems to be going well. The fair grounds are clean and fresh and the rides and the food are all tasty and fun; in particular the food has lots of variety, I really wanted to try one of those pork chops on a stick, or a cajun egg roll, but alas I looked on in envy, and decided to wait until another day. This video is a short clip of my niece with her heifer, Mazey. Mazey is a small framed heifer, should mature to at most a Frame Score 2 and weight of about 1000 lbs at full maturity. She stands out in the show barn as much for her small frame as for her distinctive beauty and good nature. Follow this link for a short video, and look for more videos to follow on youtube!

Flip Video - A Great No-Brainer Tool for Cattle Promotion

A few months back, Morris Halliburton, of Halliburton Farms in Bells, Texas, told me about about a neat little camcorder that was easy to use. I checked it out and knew I'd really like to have one. Well I got lucky, and Santa Claus brought me one for Christmas! I've only lately started putting it to use, and it has been fun and really easy to work with.

It's smaller than a pack of cigarettes; it's so small you might even lose track of it in your purse! So I highly recommend a good case for it. I'm using a hard leather cell phone case for mine; and the clip comes in handy to keep it safely handy in one spot in your purse, your pocket, or your belt.

You can also make still photos from it, and oftentimes they are better photos than I can take with a standard still camera -- at least better posed ??????The video quality is not perfect? The really really nice HD video camera I have takes awesome quality video in comparsion -- but, that doesn't much matter if the software is too much of a pain to work with to get it from the camera to the computer and then to the web!

For a video of my handsome herd bull, JWest's Elvis, follow this link to it's location on Youtube captured from my Flip Video camera

Old18

Well it has been much too long since I’ve posted a blog, and it’s been a longer than normal several months for me as well? Does that ever happen in your life? Time just seems to stand still and fast forward all at the same time – no doubt that’s a sign of age, and I suppose approaching that ‘half a century mark’ gives me a bit of an excuse for a blip in my blog posts? Life is just a big old box of chocolates as old Gump’s Mom would say, of late it’s been mostly those tart cherry filled chocolates that I don’t much like? One after another seems to come my way some days, and those nasty ones that you can’t even identify what’s actually in the middle, they really make me cringe! Yuck, just what is supposed to be likeable about some of those confections? I much prefer nut-filled chocolates, identifiable nuts -- a good solid crunch to accompany my enjoyment of chocolate. And I like the events of life to be a good solid crunch, things I can identify and enjoy, rather than chew on a while and decide to just spit out. Some of life we need to spit out and go on down the road – it’s just a bit hard to recognize those times and we chew too long, while with unacceptable chocolate confections we make the decision just real quick, a few chews and we’re done if it’s just not satisfying those taste and texture buds – it’s one big YUCK.

I sold a bull recently to some folks and they came by and picked him up, which was a good thing, I’m always happy when one of my bulls finds a forever home. But what struck me most, was the lady buying the bull recognized my ‘Old 18’ cow at pasture, she had read my blog about her from last October and guessed correctly that she was Old 18. Old 18 has shuffled along this past year with no complaints about finding herself sometimes alone, sometimes with young heifers, or young bulls, and both young groups seem to irritate her at times, and sometimes she’s with the whole herd. Trying to rotate pastures and keep this old girl happy and close by creates times when most anything can happen. When she was first with the large bull crop of calves at weaning this fall, she actually seemed to enjoy that. There were two bull calves that were often found resting right at her side, enjoying the comfort of her age and gender, I have no doubt. I could tell Old 18 liked being needed by these weanling bulls, and that was a good period for her and me.

Yesterday, winter set in and left a calling card. We had probably 5 inches plus of snow, which is quite unusual for deep East Texas. The last time I remember a snow that actually stuck and was significant was 1973, I was in junior high in Woodville, about 10 miles south of me. Regardless of the weather, Old 18 had it all worked out – she had been fed her special ration; she was tucked up in the shed by the big barn here close to the house. But, I put a kink in all that inadvertently. Last night the main cow herd was fairly vocal about this weird snow falling, and I, in sympathy and worry, opened up a gate and let them come on here to the pasture by the house, which also happens to be where Old 18 is always hobbling around.

These much stronger, more agile, cows very quickly usurped Old 18’s position under the shelter of the lean-to shed of the big barn. At about 10PM yesterday evening I checked everyone – as in, I buzzed around in my coveralls in the Ranger trying to see them all, and the windshield was clogging with snow, and I was afraid I could even run over a sleeping calf the evening was so blurry -- so it was a new check-on-the-cows experience. But, I did find Old 18 all the way down the hill with a small group of cows and couldn’t imagine that she would have gone so far from the shelter of the shed, or the wind break of the barn.

This morning Old 18 is not moving so well – she’s as stiff and slow as I’ve ever seen her. And yes I can understand that the colder weather likely has her stiffer and in more pain with her hip, but I think it’s more, and I think I see her faltering much more when she walks. Last night was a trial for her I have no doubt, and she’s appreciated all day every special thing brought to just her to eat, and she’s appreciated having the shed by the barn all to herself again to get out of the cold wind. But, nonetheless, this evening she was all the way to the fence line where I moved the main herd, sitting down and looking toward them, and I imagine wishing she was with them. I don’t know anymore whether how I handle her age and infirmities is the best approach, the happiest approach, for her – maybe no one does as most old cows are sent to an auction barn. But, I think again of our elderly human loved ones that are in poor health, as I recalled last October when I spoke of Old 18, and I again wonder at our care of an elderly cow, or an elderly dog, or even a new young pup – in comparison to some folks’ care of their elderly and infirm human family.

Without a doubt, my Old 18 enjoys her time with the herd, and maybe even wishes she was with them regularly, she probably does – but her hip wouldn’t have survived all the walking and tussling that goes on regularly. Would she have cared? Does she care? Would she just rather be always with her peers no matter the trials of each day? I will never know – because I can’t ask her, I can only watch her and try to figure out what she needs from day to day. But, we can ask our human family what they need, what they want, what makes them happy. And we should ask and listen with real sincerity, and we should try to make that answer happen if we can, or do the best we can in that direction. I imagine if Old 18 could talk, and listen, she would likely understand why she can’t be with the main herd all the time, that doesn’t mean she won’t sit at the fence and watch them and wish she was with them.

Too many elderly humans in this world are unappreciated by their children, are not respected for the trials of life they’ve endured to reach that elderly age of Old 18? That is a sad thing to get our heart and mind around, when you watch simple cows and their need and wish for companionship and attention from both their human caretakers and their herd peers, and the absolutely unrelated babes that find comfort with them -- babes that want only their company -- not some empty emotionless benefice from the elderly cow when it leaves this world for the next. The understanding of the instinct for comfort and love seems quickly lost in humans when their elderly become fragile, as though their higher power of intellect gets in the way of the basics of the mammal’s instinct for family and protectiveness, this higher intellect leaves us with a human more like a cow from a breed that has little trust, runs from you, and hogs the trough – not that any cow wouldn’t hog the trough given the chance. But, hey, humans are supposed to be of a higher intellect? Why is it that this base instinct of a cow to hog the trough, to not give a care about whether the cow next to them is their Mom or not, or their sister, just hogging up all the food they can becomes paramount, becomes so often today the higher power of humans? What does it say about them? About us?
I really like my cows, they are a fine bunch of girls, and it’s really cool when I see daughters long since weaned hanging out in the pasture with their Mom’s……..

Are You Wishing for More Heifer Calves from this Spring's Breeding Season? I know I am! Maybe we're feeding them too well during hard times. . .?

Mom's diet may play role in whether baby is boy or girl
By LINDSEY TANNER (AP Medical Writer)
From Associated Press
April 24, 2008 5:30 PM EDT

CHICAGO - Snips and snails and puppydog tails ... and cereal and bananas? That could be what little boys are made of, according to surprising new research suggesting that what a woman eats before pregnancy influences the gender of her baby. Having a hearty appetite, eating potassium-rich foods including bananas, and not skipping breakfast all seemed to raise the odds of having a boy.

The British research is billed as the first in humans to show a link between a woman's diet and whether she has a boy or girl. It is not proof, but it fits with evidence from test tube fertilization that male embryos thrive best with longer exposure to nutrient-rich lab cultures, said Dr. Tarun Jain. He is a fertility specialist at University of Illinois at Chicago who wasn't involved in the study. It just might be that it takes more nutrients to build boys than girls, he said.

University of Exeter researcher Fiona Mathews, the study's lead author, said the findings also fit with fertility research showing that male embryos aren't likely to survive in lab cultures with low sugar levels. Skipping meals can result in low blood sugar levels.

Jain said he was skeptical when he first heard about the research. But he said the study was well-done and merits follow-up study to see if the theory proves true. It's not necessarily as far-fetched as it sounds. While men's sperm determine a baby's gender, it could be that certain nutrients or eating patterns make women's bodies more hospitable to sperm carrying the male chromosome, Jain said.

"It's an interesting question. I'm not aware of anyone else looking at it in this manner," he said. The study was published Wednesday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British medical journal. The research involved about 700 first-time pregnant women in the United Kingdom who didn't know the sex of their fetuses. They were asked about their eating habits in the year before getting pregnant. Among women with the highest calorie intake before pregnancy (but still within a normal, healthy range), 56 percent had boys, versus 45 percent of the women with the lowest calorie intake.

Women who ate at least one bowl of breakfast cereal daily were 87 percent more likely to have boys than those who ate no more than one bowlful per week. Cereal is a typical breakfast in Britain and in the study, eating very little cereal was considered a possible sign of skipping breakfast, Mathews said.

Compared with the women who had girls, those who had boys ate an additional 300 milligrams of potassium daily on average, "which links quite nicely with the old wives' tale that if you eat bananas you'll have a boy," Mathews said. Women who had boys also ate about 400 calories more daily than those who had girls, on average, she said. Still, no one's recommending pigging out if you really want a boy or starving yourself if you'd prefer a girl.

Neither style of eating is healthy, and besides all the health risks linked with excess weight, other research suggests obese women have a harder time getting pregnant. The study results reflect women at opposite ends of a normal eating pattern, not those with extreme habits, Mathews said. Professor Stuart West of the University of Edinburgh said the results echo research in some animals.

And Dr. Michael Lu, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and public health at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the results "are certainly plausible from an evolutionary biology perspective." In other words, since boys tend to be bigger, it would make sense that it would take more calories to create them, Lu said.

Still, Lu said a woman's diet before pregnancy may be a marker for other factors in their lives that could influence their baby's gender, including timing of intercourse.

"The bottom line is, we still don't know how to advise patients in how to make boys," he said.
---
On the Net:
Journal: http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page1087

American Grassfed Association - Rhetoric vs. Reality

American Grassfed Association - Rhetoric vs. Reality
by Jimmie L. West
February 21, 2008

This past October the American Grassfed Association (AGA) held it's annual conference in Austin, Texas. The event was well attended with folks coming from many parts of the USA to participate in the many planned educational seminars. By far the most interesting, educational, and just plain entertaining guest speaker was the Scottish butcher, Stuart Minick -- and guess what, his finishing program for his organic grassfed beef includes oats and molasses added to the final 30 days of finish.

Stuart Minick said the addition of oats and molasses to the finishing rations gives the resulting fat a smoother, tastier eating experience, and he indicated this method of finish is one of longstanding tradition. It was apparent that the American extremism of 100% grassfed was anathema to him. But is that American extremism of 100% or 99% (you see both purported) fact or fiction?

Prior to attending the AGA annual conference, I would have staunchly defended all AGA grassfed producer/members as 100% forage -- now, I question the integrity of that statement, and left the conference more than mildly disillusioned and just plain irritated. I have for years now rigidly pursued a 100% forage based feeding program, and have made harsh breeding decisions based on animal performance under this regimen. The result has given me a clear picture of what British White cattle genetic lines will best perform under this regimen, so I have no regrets. But, I am irritated.

The USDA had a speaker at the conference to explain the newly created USDA grassfed standards. It was during this gentleman's presentation that I was enlightened as to what is actually taking place on many grassfed beef operations. One grassfed producer attending that presentation asked the USDA representative, "What about molasses tubs . . .?" The USDA rep. responded with the comment that he wasn't aware that was part of the feeding regimen, and the fellow assured him it was and that ". . .everybody fed tubs." I chimed in at that point, asking just what tubs he was feeding, as so far as I knew there were no molasses tubs on the market that were just that - plain molasses. I didn't get an answer, instead another grassfed producer spoke up and said she fed molasses tubs as well and that they were all natural and okay to feed. Okay, I thought, well that's interesting.

Over the past few years I've heard on the grapevine that things like molasses, beet pulp, and whole cotton seed were okay to feed your grassfed herd -- but as it wasn't in the standards I stuck to 100% forage. The enlightening conversation in this meeting, to which no AGA employee or other AGA member objected, confirmed that grapevine information so far as feeding molasses. This past summer my pasture grasses seemed to be lacking some element of nutrition that always keeps my cows fat and happy and ready for winter, and a test of it in early summer showed a low brie(sp?).

This lack of brie or sweetness to my grasses got me thinking about adding molasses to their diet this winter. I had spent a great deal of time a few years ago and more trying to locate a source for pure molasses -- which is what Stuart Minick feeds his beeves in the finish phase, pure molasses -- and I couldn't find a source beyond going straight to a sugar mill in Louisiana and getting it by the barrel to haul to the ranch. After this USDA meeting, I queried one of the heads of the AGA on just where I could get these acceptable molasses tubs, and I was given the name of a manufacturer to contact. I was thrilled for two reasons. One, that apparently the AGA was truly totally okay fine with the feeding of molasses (you can't find the feeding of molasses addressed anywhere on their web site); and Two, I now had a source of healthy molasses tubs for my girls when they needed an extra boost in the winter.

Boy was I disappointed. The manufacturer did not have molasses tubs for AGA producers, had in fact worked with the organization in the past to develop one, but there had never been agreement reached on the content of the tubs. Strange indeed.

Try as I might, I cannot find a single mention in the AGA's "Grass Ruminant Standards" dated December 2006, of the feeding of molasses tubs -- either pure, natural molasses, or molasses tubs with their typical added protein boosters of questionable source. Section 3.2.7 of the Standards does allow for "incidental supplementation" defined as ". . .less than one percent of the total energy consumed during the animal's lifetime." It's from this section of the Standards that we get the 99% grassfed minimum. This 1% is to allow for inadvertent exposure to a dreaded grain, and to provide a little help in maintaining cow health in times of adverse conditions. Quite laudable, but it doesn't provide for regular use of molasses tubs with added energy/protein sources, which is exactly what some members are providing their "grassfed" herds.

The AGA has had a web site up and running for quite some time, has been an established organization for quite some time, has had a set of Standards for grassfed producers for quite some time. But, they have never implemented adherence to those standards with a resulting certification label as AGA Grassfed. The new USDA standards for grassfed meat production also provide a protocol, but do not provide audit of the producer with resulting certification -- it's a voluntary program -- which is obviously what the AGA's has been up to now. Perhaps if there'd been a certification process in place with the AGA, the USDA would have done likewise.

This week we learn that ". . The American Grassfed Association said Wednesday its board has voted to start certifying grass-fed meat operations under a new industry-backed standard administered by Food Alliance (FA), owner one of the most comprehensive agricultural eco-labels in North America." That certainly makes for great press, but what is the back story on this new development?

At the Austin conference the proposal to join up with Food Alliance was on the agenda; with Scott Exo, Executive Director of Food Alliance, being a primary speaker during the discussion session for this marriage between the AGA and Food Alliance. From the get go, the questions from the floor were negative on this proposal. The producers attending had done their homework and were quite concerned that the extensive and whole enterprise encompassing requirements to produce grassfed meats under Food Alliance would leave the small grassfed producer out in the cold. My read on the Food Alliance program was precisely the same.

The question uppermost in my mind was why the AGA needed Food Alliance. The USDA provides for specialty certification for a wide variety of producer protocols, and why not work with them. The newly minted USDA voluntary standards for grassfed production does not preclude the AGA or any other group from implementing a USDA certification program. I raised that question and was told that the bison people tried to do that and it cost them lots of money and they never got anywhere with it -- end of discussion.

There were a variety of questions from the floor put to Scott Exo when he took the podium. The concerns were centered around the obvious need to have a big operation and deep pockets to qualify as a provider to Food Alliance; not only would there be the expected production protocols, but the producer would have to meet various other requirements -- labor issues being one area of a particularly rigorous nature to the small shop producer. Scott Exo apparently tired of these questions from these hard working farmers and actually 'bowed up' at his audience, an expression you hear in East Texas when somebody gets suddenly real defensive.

Scott Exo made the statement along the lines of ". . .we've been courting you for while and we're taking you to the dance. . ." -- something like that, it was quite unprofessional, and his physical posture was one of somebody ready to have a fight. It certainly raised my eyebrows, and my suspicions of just what exactly was at stake here for Food Alliance and for the AGA. Obviously, Food Alliance will garner revenues from the large producers who can comply with all their protocols, but until the specifics of the financial arrangement between Food Alliance and the American Grassfed Association are fully disclosed, we can only speculate as to the root of his distress.

Food Alliance now has the AGA at "the dance"; and AGA affiliated grassfed producers will have to perform the dance steps required by Food Alliance to ever get an AGA label for their product. The small producer whose funds have supported the AGA is potentially pretty much out of the picture. In the AGA press release much is made of the standards that will now be finally implemented via Food Alliance as superior to the USDA standards.

For sure, the new USDA grassfed standards were hotly discussed at the Austin conference and used as a general prop to justify striking a deal with Food Alliance. The press release states ". . . AGA's grass-fed marketing claim standard is intended to exceed the requirements for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grass-fed standard announced in October, which allows animals confined to feedlots, given antibiotics and growth hormones to still be labeled 'grass-fed' as long as they were fed a forage diet."

Actually, the USDA does provide for Antibiotic Free and Growth Hormone Free labeling, just not within the new USDA grassfed standards, they see it as a separate issue. The important issues with the new USDA grassfed standards are potential feedlot confinement due to loophole type language in the standard, and their wholly voluntary nature. The American Grassfed Association could have implemented their own standards under a USDA certification program to address those concerns, but of course that cost those bison folks lots of money and they ended up with nothing.

Let's get back to those molasses tubs. I still haven't found one that has nothing but forage based protein added to it -- I'm not even sure that's doable, but I'm not a chemist, or scientist, or whatever. But in the AGA press release we find again that "total forage" comment and one can't help but ponder where these molasses tubs fit with the program. The following statement is made, "The AGA standards, on the other hand, are primarily based on four precepts: total forage diet, no confinement, no antibiotics and no added hormones."

Molasses isn't allowed under those basic precepts, although it is not a grain, and has long been a boon to meeting the energy requirements of cattle during stressful periods. In the good old days it was fairly easy in big sugar cane and beet growing areas to get real molasses to supplement cattle in times of additional energy needs. From various things I've read, it appears that adding molasses helps cattle to process high protein diets, like dairy quality alfalfa, more efficiently -- they don't poop out as much of that valuable and expensive protein. As I said before, I'm not a scientist, so don't quote me on that. Depending on what manufacturer is selling what, you can find all kinds of reasons and justifications for why you should buy their feed stuff -- which is precisely why I originally converted to an all grass/forage based cattle operation, and precisely why I wanted to find a source for pure unadulterated molasses.

I don't care for all the gobbly gook ingredient lists and conflicting sales pitches on why something is good for my cows; and I haven't found a molasses tub yet that doesn't have something in it that I don't like. Are they feeding molasses tubs with things like feather meal in them? Sounds too much like eating a chicken, and I don't think my cows would knowingly eat a chicken. But without AGA guidance and oversight, how is the grassfed meat consumer to know whether the steak they have on the grill ate feathers?

What exactly is in those molasses tubs that "everybody feeds"? Open and clear communication with members as to what is acceptable is sorely needed.

So how could molasses fit in to a "total forage" certification program? Is it that open ended 1% of a cows total intake over their lifetime? Is that little item of much greater importance to the grassfed producer than I ever ever considered? At this point, I'm thinking that is one big loop hole that's been jumped on and in by the savvy grassfed meat producer. Calculating that 1% could become as complicated as doing my taxes. The British White cow has an amazingly long and productive breeding life. So what would be the lifetime 1% for my breed, versus 1% for a breed with a shorter life span? Of course, the average weight of your cow herd has to be taken into consideration when calculating this 1% as well. Generally, a cow is said to consume about 3% of it's body weight every day of it's life.

The whole thing just gets really complicated, makes me want to get an excel spreadsheet up and running to work it all out -- but then, without a video camera, how is the grassfed producer supposed to know how much of a molasses tub was consumed by what cow or bull or maybe a pet llama running with the herd? Sounds ridiculous, and it is.

Of course the grassfed beef steer has an average finite life. Generally he'll be ready for slaughter by at least 24 months old, and of course he'll be putting on weight every day and eating incrementally more every day. So maybe what the grassfed meat producer is doing to put that final finish fat on their steers is feeding every bit of that allowable 1% in the final 30 days! Like the Scottish butcher, Stuart Minick, does on his Aberdeen Angus beef operation in England. It makes grand sense to me, and at first thought sounds like it makes it a heckuva lot easier to calculate that allowable 1%. But no, I just gave it a brief thought, got out my calculator even, but darn if it's still somewhat complicated to figure out. Perhaps the Food Alliance protocols will have some hard and fast formula for determining this small, but apparently highly pertinent, loop hole in the AGA standards.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this loop hole providing the opening for these molasses tubs AGA members are feeding; but if I am wrong, then the problems within the AGA are much worse than I concluded they were after attending the AGA conference in Austin, which in general was poorly organized. I would like to be able to say that AGA's partnership with Food Alliance is a great step for the members, but I don't beieve it is. ". . . Exo said those passing certification under the specific AGA grass-fed standards will be able to market products with both FA and the AGA's American Grass Fed seals."

"[Producers] will be getting a twofer," he (Exo) said.

Grassfed producers shouldn't have to get that "twofer". Large and small producers of grassfed meats could have been certified by the AGA itself; and those large producers desiring Food Alliance certification as well, certainly wouldn't have been prevented from garnering that quite respectable designation. The whole concept of grassfed has an inherent simplicity. The AGA's own comments highlight that simplicity, ". . .primarily based on four precepts: total forage diet, no confinement, no antibiotics and no added hormones."

Just how hard would that have been for them to audit and certify? Not terribly hard at all. Now, that "twofer" is forced on the producer who wishes to have the AGA's certification label. Exo calls this simplification, "That is the kind of simplification that the marketplace is looking for," Exo says in reference to growing consumer desire for meats raised humanely, naturally, etc...

I can't find a single thing of great consumer importance that the FA designation provides that wouldn't have been provided by the AGA's own simple precepts: ". . .Total forage diet, no confinement, no antibiotics and no added hormones." The FA certification ". .addresses labor conditions, humane animal care, and environmental stewardship." The labor conditions are usually the owner's own sweat; humane animal care is intrinsic to growing grassfed meats; and the grassfed producer can't be a grassfed producer without environmental stewardship -- it's the life blood of their operation, next to superior feed efficient animals.

Simplification?



THE FOLLOWING IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE AGA'S PRESS RELEASE:

American Grassfed Association E-Update
February 20,2008


Grass-fed beef producers approve new labeling standard
Food Alliance may start inspections under new grass-fed standard by May

by Sustainable Food News
February 20, 2008

The American Grassfed Association (AGA) said Wednesday its board has voted to start certifying grass-fed meat operations under a new industry-backed standard administered by Food Alliance, owner one of the most comprehensive agricultural eco-labels in North America.

"We can now begin the process of developing the audit protocols that will allow our members to certify their farms and ranches as grassfed," AGA Beef Director Will Harris told Sustainable Food News.

The AGA represents more than 300 grassfed livestock producers. FA certifies farms, ranches, food processors and distributors for sustainable agriculture certification, which addresses labor conditions, humane animal care, and environmental stewardship.

Certified businesses can use the green, FA eco-label on its products to show off social and environmental responsibility.

FA Executive Director Scott Exo told Sustainable Food News earlier that it could his group could start taking applications and undertaking inspections of producers wishing to be AGA-certified by May.

AGA's grass-fed marketing claim standard is intended to exceed the requirements for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grass-fed standard announced in October, which allows animals confined to feedlots, given antibiotics and growth hormones to still be labeled 'grass-fed' as long as they were fed a forage diet.

The AGA standards, on the other hand, are primarily based on four precepts: total forage diet, no confinement, no antibiotics and no added hormones. The AGA grass-fed claim applies to ruminants only - cattle, sheep and eventually goats - not poultry or pork.

And since producers seeking FA certification are already assessed against rigorous animal welfare standards including no hormones or non-therapeutic antibiotics, Exo said those passing certification under the specific AGA grass-fed standards will be able to market products with both FA and the AGA's American Grass Fed seals.

"[Producers] will be getting a twofer," he said.

Grass-fed meat producers have waited for years for the department to develop certification standards and procedures, like the organic certification and seal, to distinguish grass-fed animals from conventionally raised animals.

And though the USDA did ban the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in its 'naturally raised' marketing claim standard it released in December, it still leaves out the issue of confinement.

The comment period for the proposed voluntary standard for a naturally-raised marketing claim for livestock and meat was recently extended to March 3.

Still, Exo said splitting sustainable agriculture practices into separate marketing claims can be especially frustrating for producers.

"The problem with slicing things so thinly is that a producer has to put words all over packaging to get his marketing message across," he said.

Exo said with both Food Alliance and AGA grass-fed certification producers are able to have a host of practices assessed to standards that consumers are calling for; all in one certification process and indicated by the FA and AGA seals.

"That is the kind of simplification that the marketplace is looking for," he said.


Please note - Our mailing address has changed!
2801 E Colfax Avenue Suite 302
Denver, CO 80206

The Travels and Trials of Old 18 - Her Story

"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston Churchill

"Nothing can prepare you for living or working with a sociopathic serial bully. It is the most devastating, draining, misunderstood, and ultimately futile experience imaginable." Tim Field, Bully on Sight

". . .When close to being outwitted and exposed, the bully feigns victimhood and turns the focus on themselves - this is another example of manipulating people through their emotion of guilt, e.g. sympathy, feeling sorry, etc. Female serial bullies are especially partial to making themselves the center of attention by claiming to be the injured party whilst portraying their target as the villain of the piece. . ." Tim Field, Bully on Sight

Although you hear many people using the term 'stupid cow' or some such, from my observations they are far from stupid. Each member of my herd has particular character traits and behavior that are uniquely their own. Cow family groups are often found grazing together -- the Grandmother, Daughters, and Granddaughters. Most often many traits of the sire and dam in terms of personality and behavior are passed on to their calves. Most cattle breeders are familiar with the term "heritability", and certain behavioral as well as physical traits are quite heritable in cattle. If a cow or bull is inclined to be more curious and precocious, the probability is great that their calves will have some degree of this same trait. If a cow is a pushy sort of girl, then look for that to express itself in her offspring, and so on with the whole gamut of possibilities. Old 18 was, and is now again, a gentle and quiet old girl, easily contented.



While we generally see these desirable behavioral traits of cows passed on to their calves, every now and then the odd one hits the ground -- the odd calf born to very good-natured parents that is inexplicably disconnected from kinship with it's family group, and typically much more aggressive about protecting its personal 'flight zone' space. My observations of people over the years, and particularly the past several years, is that the odd calf in a herd of cattle that is a Genetic misfit with the parents and other siblings, can be found as well in human families. The destructive types of human misfits explored in this essay are the self-absorbed humans who perceive themselves as more important than anyone else and more deserving than anyone else -- the narcissists -- they close their eyes to the needs of others, and place individuals in their family unit who might be useful to them at a careful and calculated distance -- a human 'flight zone' that is based on how much or how little the individual complies with the misfit human's needs. (See Mayo Clinic, Narcissistic Personality Disorder )

You can see it in their eyes somehow -- that they just don't have a lot to give of themselves and they like it that way -- and, yes, I'm referring to the few odd cows and calves I've encountered and the human misfits, who are quite often Sociopathic Serial Bullies, which is one of the most damaging degrees of sickness for the narcissistic human misfit. The odd bovine misfits won't be found licking the face of their sisters or their mother, hanging out under a tree with their family group, helping with the care-taking of one another just doesn't happen -- unless of course there is personal gain, but a cow doesn't generally hang with another for personal gain. While they most definitely aren't stupid, they wouldn't conceive of the using or abusing of another's emotions as the path to filling their belly with the best the rancher has to offer -- but without a doubt a human misfit will.

This summer Old 18, a very aged cow, returned to my herd -- I've referred to her as 'Old 18' in an earlier essay, and she is pictured above in November of 2004. I placed Old 18 a couple of years ago with a nice family nearby who could keep her in smaller pastures that wouldn't be so hard on her bad hip. However, this respite from life in a big herd was short-lived, and she was traded into a commercial herd where she was just one of a group of many -- her physical limitations no doubt of little consequence to the new owner. She was brought back to me because she is too aged to be of value to the typical rancher, and I did not want her taken to an auction barn where she would undoubtedly suffer from ill behavior on the part of humans -- and she did not deserve that treatment after all her years of service to us humans. Initially, I was irritated at the cavalier treatment of Old 18 by the fellow that dropped her off in the cattle pens. But upon second thought, at least he had the courage and the care to try to do what was now best for her now that her usefulness to him was over. He could have put her in a pasture corner and simply ignored her until she died a so-called natural death.

Old 18 was mal-nourished , her joints popping loudly through the air with every measured step, and perhaps worst of all, her personality had changed -- she was shy of me, of everyone. You couldn't walk near where she was resting, typically alone in the beginning, without her struggling to her feet and shuffling away. She was a tired and frightened old girl, and I'll never know what human treatment she received to make her so. I thought I was doing the right thing, letting her live in a less strenuous environment; believed that she would be cared for as the special grande' dame British White cow she is, until the day she died -- I was wrong. Perhaps, if she could, she would have articulated these questions during her sojourn away from home:

***"Question: I feel so ill and desperate I sometimes have suicidal thoughts?
Answer: These feelings, which include reactive depression, are a normal reaction to an abnormal situation. You are not mentally ill, but mentally injured and fatigued. The cause is external which means someone is responsible and liable for your condition. Physical and Emotional Response to Abuse

Question: Why am I a victim?

Answer: You're not a victim, you're a target. The bully has deliberately and intentionally targeted you. It is the bully's pattern of behaviour with constant nitpicking criticisms, false allegations and so on which reveals intent."

For several months now I've again found myself in a long term babysit of Old 18. She was pretty much emaciated upon her return to the ranch, but now she has a decent amount of fat cover. While her time away from here greatly worsened her bad hip, her joints no longer pop and creak so loudly. I keep her always in a pasture near the house. At the end of every long day I seek her out and make sure she is okay, that she hasn't taken a turn for the worse, that she appears healthy and at enough of a level of ease to enjoy the remainder of her life. It doesn't take much time really to just check and say hi and make sure she's okay --

[. . . the narcissistic human has no time for such care-giving activity, unless it is perceived as a gainful approach to their selfish goals, such as known reward at ultimate death of the individual, be it parent or child, or the narcissist's projection of their self love in their offspring or parent. Self-love through offspring or parents in the narcissistic human is particularly insidious -- as it is only as constant as the offspring's or parent's constancy of agreement with the narcissist human.]

The days can be long for a rancher, it's not at all a glam pursuit. Most often the days are filled with the more gainful side of one's occupations that support the rearing of cattle -- and at the close of the day as dusk approaches you take that walk and check on those who may be in need of your attention. Sadly, human misfits have so little 'humanity' that they can't be bothered to even take this same little bit of time, this brief walk, with aged or injured human family members -- their own time, their own health, is all that matters.

The human misfit's self-importance is so great that they can't be bothered to check upon and observe the health of nearby family members that have in their view failed to supply or comply with their wishes -- a cow would never be so cold. Old 18 has another cow that has bonded with her and they are now often found together keeping one another company. If I had daughters here at the ranch from Old 18, I've no doubt they would be seen regularly at her side.

Sadly, when it's a human misfit, much harm can be done to the entire family unit when one exceedingly malicious person is born into that fold. When it's a cow that is a bad apple, eventually it's seen and accepted as such by us humans, and we let someone else see what they can do with the cow by way of the auction barn -- just maybe it would prefer different, or better, digs to call home.

With humans, we can't just dispose of the family member and let someone else try to work through their personal issues -- we can only hope the misfit human will win the lotto and just go away and stop causing such unnecessary pain and distress to the other members of the family unit -- or best of all, hope they'll surely come to their senses and be that loving and care-giving human that is a reflection of the family unit. This generally doesn't prove to happen. Instead, that human continues to cause extreme pain and distress to the vulnerable family members who can't fathom the root of their malice, and can't fathom the depth of their deceits.

But it is not theirs to fathom, it is an anomaly of nature -- much better they all would be not to try to fathom the depths of the odd misfit human, but to put them aside and go on, much like one assumes a cow family must surely do by simple animal instinct. But in the daily course of life that realization of one bad apple being a weird anomaly of nature is hard to accept by a human mother, father, or siblings -- painful to work with, and the attempt at acceptance of the misfit human puts other loved ones in harms away, drains away their spirit, and takes away their beautiful smile. . . perhaps forever.

With the misfit cow, we let it go elsewhere so it's behavior won't be a daily pain in the rear, won't perhaps influence the behavior of other cows and calves by example. With the misfit human who just doesn't go away, and most likely we don't want to go away, we remain so hopeful of a return of kindness and care to their character that we allow them to remain in our family unit.

Because of their mutual love of their mother, father, or siblings; the family unit remains in a state of hope that the human misfit will find again the clarity and gentleness of spirit of their youth, that can perhaps be likened to the young calf feeling the strength and the wonder of it's legs as it dashes across the pasture without an agenda at hand. Sounds sappy, and it is, and it's just what your human misfit wants you to do, believe . . .hope. . . there is an end to the emotional pain in sight, if you'll just provide what they seek this time -- manipulation is perhaps their greatest skill.

Old 18 seems to be handling the cold of winter fairly well. I was concerned about her being in perhaps a great deal of joint pain with the change of the season, but so far she seems to be at a constant level of ease. It's not unusual to find Old 18 resting with all the baby calves gathered around her, their dams designating the old girl as the babysitter for the day. Oftentimes, the youngsters make a mad dash to her and run around her, as though they're trying to encourage her to have some play time with them. As long as I see that she is content, she'll remain with me, and with this earth . . . I think she's well worth the extra time and care-taking.

NOTE: I most likely will post this blog again from time to time, edit it from time to time. I imagine it will only bother those people who feel uncomfortable with themselves upon reading it. And most likely the commission of 4 or 5 of these 10 Commandments below have been for many years, and remain to this day, a critical part of their sorry daily life.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

It's likely difficult for someone who exhibits the majority of the traits provided below of Narcissistic Personality Disorder to even comprehend the error of their ways, or even recognize basic moral rules of human behavior such as the Ten Commandments of even being pertinent to their lives -- they are much too special.

The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others, (Unless it can be publicly accomplished to further the narcissistic ideal self they strive to project.)
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder often cross a moral line into Sociopathic Serial Bully disorder, and the resulting damage to their family unit knows no bounds. Is your life infected with the presence of a Sociopathic Serial Bully? Serial bullies harbour a particular hatred of anyone who can articulate their behaviour profile, either verbally or in writing . . . in a manner which helps other people see through their deception and their mask of deceit. Serial bullies hate to see themselves and their behaviour reflected as if they are looking into a mirror.

Update

"Yet, the prime rule of narcissism must never be forgotten: the narcissist uses anything available to obtain his (or her) Narcissistic Supply. Children happen to be more attached to the female narcissist because women are still the primary caregivers and the ones who give birth. It is easier for a woman to think of her children (or her own mother) as her extensions because they once indeed were her physical extensions and because her on-going interaction with them is both more intensive and more extensive.

. . .Devoid of the diversity of alternatives available to men – the narcissistic woman fights to maintain her most reliable source of supply: her children (or parents). Through insidious indoctrination, guilt formation, emotional extortion, deprivation and other psychological mechanisms, she tries to induce in them a dependence, which cannot be easily unraveled.
But, there is no psychodynamic difference between children as sources of narcissistic supply - and money, or intellect, or any other Source of Narcissistic Supply. So, there is no psychodynamic difference between male and female narcissists. The only difference is in their choices of sources of narcissistic supply."

***********MAYO CLINIC - DESCRIPTION OF NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others.

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may also seek out others you think have the same special talents, power and qualities — people you see as equals. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance.

But underneath all this grandiosity often lies a very fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.
**********************************************************

Follow this link for an online Narcissistic Abuse Message Board.

Update:

While I certainly don't concur or embrace the literal meaning of the biblical passages below, they do provide a blunt metaphor worth contemplating:

. . . Jesus specifically upheld the requirement of the Old Testament law of Exodus 21:17:

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
He did so in Matthew 15:4, where He said:

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death (cf. Mark 7:10).

"If we would cite Jesus in support of the 5th Commandment that prescribes the honor of parents, then we should not shrink from citing Him in support of the law of God that prescribes the punishment of those who would be so vile as to curse their parents. For Jesus, these two laws are united as the expression of the moral law of God: one states the fundamental duty, and the other gives the righteous punishment for those who would violate that duty to such a flagrant and debased degree." (Source: Essay on Stoning Disobedient Children )

Ethanol Refineries - Fair or Foul?

The Environmental Protection Agency, just a few short weeks ago, revised downward the pollution control standards for ethanol producing plants. It wasn't exactly major news for the networks -- but it should have been. This action by the EPA no doubt is a result of strong lobbying efforts from major corn and ethanol producers. Prior to this revision, the threshold of toxic emissions allowed before an ethanol producing site must install the latest pollution controls was 100 tons annually; the EPA's April revision more than doubles that threshold to 250 annual tons of toxic emissions. In addition, the EPA agreed to allow so-called 'fugitive' emissions from small vents or pipes to be excluded from computation in reaching the new 250 ton pollution emission threshold for ethanol plants.

While many U.S. farmers and rural communities are eagerly on board for raising more corn and building ethanol plants in their communities -- many are not. The concerns abound regarding the permanent loss of quality of air and life and many are fighting to stop the building of ethanol plants in their rural communities. The EPA's willingness to relax pollution control standards for ethanol production facilities certainly strengthens the argument and position of those farming communities fighting to keep the fumes of ethanol production out of their air space.

One of the primary arguments for the use of ethanol, or ethanol mixed with gasoline, is that it reduces carbon monoxide emissions, which sounds just grand on the surface. However, what is largely absent from all ethanol rhetoric is that ethanol emissions contain "nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl nitrate". (Patzek, 2004) And that's just to name a few of the toxic by-products of cooling off the earth by pumping some ethanol into your tank.

What a joke. And the jokes on us. Do you really want to be an Ethanol Patriot and pump bio-fuel into your car? You see, ethanol is pretty volatile, it will break down while you are pumping it into your car. Take a deep breath, pull those carcinogens into your lungs - could that be the new American way to save the earth?

The State of Minnesota has embraced on a fairly large scale the construction and operation of ethanol plants, having some 16 ethanol plants in operation, and several more are under construction today. The following is an excerpt from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) web site -- and it surely must be scary for a state or region to feel like a virtual guinea pig or lab rat as the emissions from ethanol plants are studied after the fact to determine just what is coming out of an ethanol smoke stack.

"Consent decrees negotiated with the plant owners revealed underreported emissions and required pollution control equipment to be installed in an effort to accurately quantify and reduce air emissions. Most facilities consistently reported similar constituents including detectable levels of acetaldehyde, acetic acid, formaldehyde, ethanol and methanol, although there was considerable variation in quantities of analytes among facilities and among different processes at a facility. Although the data set is small, it is the most extensive available. Further systematic testing is necessary to thoroughly characterize the complex gas stream from various stages of the ethanol production process. Until additional data are obtained and analyzed, we cannot say with complete certainty whether data gaps have implications for risk analysis." Any state, any community, considering building a 'biorefinery' to produce ethanol should visit the MPCA web site -- it is pretty darn scary, and it looks like it's a money pit from an administrative and regulatory viewpoint as well.

The more than 200 U.S. ethanol plants in operation or under construction emit thousands of tons of pollutants a year, including nitrogen oxides, a key element of smog and damage to the ozone layer. As the EPA has apparently little concern for the air pollution of rural areas from ethanol production, other States are hopefully investigating ethanol plant emissions and implementing their own regulatory standards to ensure the cleanest air possible for those who must now live with an industrial smoke stack next door.

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), which bills itself as the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, has a very lame response on their web site to the results of a very recent Stanford University study that concluded there were risks from ethanol emissions. Per the RFA, "this study by Professor Jacobson does show that most of the air quality “problems” he identified stem from acetaldehyde that is either emitted directly or results from excessive ethanol emissions. If these problems were found to be serious enough, then regulations could quickly be put into place that would require vehicles . . . meet more stringent ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions standards before they could be certified for sale." Excuse me? Why are we subsidizing the creation of a bio-fuel before we've even fully explored it's new and singular impact on the air we breath? How does this fella know we can find a way to lessen acetaldehyde emissions? He doesn't; he just has to be hopeful and positive, that's his job. By the way, acetaldehyde is a known carcinogen.

Within the EPA's April decision to relax the pollution standards for ethanol refineries, there is an exception made that both undermines the basis for relaxing the standards and clearly shows a lack of concern for the clean air in rural communities: The newly revised EPA standards do not apply to ethanol plants in urban areas where air pollution is already a problem. So, just what does that tell you? Tells me there is known 'bad stuff' coming out of those smoke stacks, and allowing 250 tons to be emitted into good clean country air is a cop out on the part of the EPA.

U.S. ethanol production has jumped more than 300% since the year 2000. Per the RFA in early April, there are currently 114 ethanol biorefineries (RFA's earth friendly term for their ethanol plants) nationwide with the capacity to produce more than 5.6 billion gallons annually. There are 80 ethanol refineries and 7 expansions under construction with a combined annual capacity of more than 6 billion gallons.

The National Corn Growers Association says U.S. corn growers hold the potential to produce 15 billion bushels by 2015 - a third of which could be used to produce some 15 billion gallons of ethanol. But, corn based ethanol producers and farmers don't have a corner on the ethanol market. What happens when the subsidies and tax incentives dry up? or when there is a major long term drought? The Global Warming fanatics might be right. Where does that leave corn based ethanol? Nowhere really. Can that new corn based ethanol plant in Littletown, Kansas be converted to the latest and greatest? If so, at what cost? Or will it eventually become nothing more than a massive incinerator for the worst industrial waste money can produce in the world? I'll leave that possibility for another day -- but it is quite real.

How is it that we as a country have gotten in such a rush to subsidize ethanol production when we have not fully explored all the alternative sources and arrived at the most economic and healthy approach to producing ethanol in the USA? If this were a drug, it would still be under testing.

There are many alternatives to creating ethanol other than from corn that are being explored globally. The one I find most intriguing was recently announced by LanzaTech, a New Zealand based company. They are using bacterial fermentation to convert carbon monoxide into ethanol. Per LanzaTech, this technology could produce 50 billion gallons of ethanol from the world's steel mills alone, turning the liability of carbon emissions into valuable fuels worth over $50 billion per year at very low costs and adding substantial value to the steel industry. There would be some poetic beauty to that alternative, and one that would economically and environmentally have a positive impact on industrialized areas in the USA and around the world -- including Southeast Texas.

Research is underway as well to produce ethanol from other plants, including wheat, oats and barley. Sugar cane is already a viable source of ethanol -- while it is a water needy crop, it can withstand a wide range of drought and freeze conditions, and it's a perennial crop. Others are looking at genetically engineering microbes to produce enzymes that will convert cellulose in crop waste, wood chips and other plants into ethanol. The Energy Department is investing $385 million in six new cellulosic ethanol plants around the country. More than half the ethanol made in Kansas already comes from sorghum, which requires less water than corn.

And speaking of water, do you really find much coming out of Citizen Green's mouth about the massive amount of water required to produce ethanol from corn? How about the enormous fertilize, herbicide, and pesticide requirements for those annual crops of corn, and the post-production waste water the ethanol plant has to find a home for? How will all of this impact the biology of our water, our oceans? Do you know? I didn't think so. Have a chat with a long time resident of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and see what they have to say about chemical run off from the cotton, grain, and corn fields that makes it's way to the Laguna Madre and impacts the ecosystem of that once pristine bay. Ask them if they willingly drink water out of the tap. Then magnify their response by multiples of......oh, say 100, let's think big, let's think long term ethanol production, long-term blinders. Ouch, it's just too scary. It needs to be curtailed now.

I think most of us would go back to riding a bicycle before we'd knowingly create a national dependency and drain on our water resources just to have ethanol to buzz over to Cousin Joe's for a beer, or Aunt Bet's for bowl of gumbo. We can strap a bottle of water to that bike and life goes on. Suddenly car-pooling wouldn't seem such an irritating idea, after all, we can't live without good clean water -- or air, or for that matter good old Southern cornbread. If this corn ethanol takes off, just how costly will a pound of corn meal be?

If we're going to create a whole new dynamic in America's food supply in order to mitigate our dependence on oil, let's pick something that would have a healthy impact on the American diet. After all, we are the most obese country in the world -- let's fix that problem and at the same time create an alternative bio-fuel. With those joint goals, sugar cane becomes the ultimate ethanol crop with enormous positive consequences for the health of America. No doubt with less sugar in our diet we could breathe a whole lot more of that fouled country air -- our immune systems would be much stronger without all that sugar, and we'd be a lot thinner and could more easily fit in little bitty cars that run on bio-fuel.


Copyright, May 7, 2007, Jimmie Lynn West

Links:

EnergyJustice.net - Ethanol Fact Sheet

Ethanol BioRefinery Locations in the USA

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Ethanol in Minnesota

Massive Water Requirements of Ethanol - Let the Ethanol Producers Tell You Themselves How Much They Need

States, EPA Raise Water Quality Concerns Over New Ethanol Incentives, April 2007

Thermo-Dynamics of the Corn-Ethanol BioFuel Cycle, Tad Patzek, UC Berkely, 2004

The United States of America Meets the Planet Earth, Patzek, 2005

Pasture raised Beef - True Natural Beef for the Consumer

EATING LOCALLY

Grass fit for beef
At Betsy Ross' ranch near Granger the restored land produces natural munchies that make for tasty beef
By Patrick Beach

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

GRANGER — On the subjects of nematodes, microbes and the ever-popular saprophytic and mycorrhizal fungi, Betsy Ross sounds positively evangelical. They're the reason, she says, her beef tastes so good.

Ross, her sister, son and daughter-in-law run some 150 head of cattle a year through their operation near here, along the San Gabriel River, and once the cattle are weaned they're placed on a novel diet: grass. Rye grass, clover, Bermuda, alfalfa and native prairie grasses, grazing on 500 acres divided into 100 paddocks. They eat what, in other words, they were built to eat — as opposed to grain. Some of the cattle are sold to other producers; the rest wind up as about 20,000 pounds of packaged beef annually.

Betsy Ross beef, sold as frozen steaks, roasts and ground beef, is available at all the People's Pharmacies in Austin and, Ross says, should soon be stocked at the downtown Whole Foods Market.

Ross and a handful of other livestock producers in Texas and nationwide are no threat to conventional operations that raise huge numbers of cattle on corn: According to the Texas Beef Council, there are 140,000 beef producers in Texas alone. By comparison, Eatwild.com, a site for "grass-fed food and facts," lists just 42 grass-fed beef producers in the state. (Ross believes the number to be closer to 100.) But with the obesity epidemic, food safety scares (contaminated spinach?) and books such as Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" raising public consciousness about what we put in our bodies, there are signs the movement is growing, albeit not at the rate of a pound a day as Ross' cross-bred cattle do.

The argument that Pollan and other believers make is that it's not necessarily our food that's making us sick, but what we feed our food. And when we raise cattle on corn, pump them full of antibiotics and fatten them to market weight rapidly, what winds up on a hamburger bun is invariably unhealthy.

And, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that fat equals flavor, a lot of folks say the leaner grass-fed cow actually tastes better, too. It does. Really. A couple of years of personal eating research confirms a meatier, slightly stronger taste, but enough fat to keep the meat from being too dry or tough.

"People are connecting the dots," Ross says. "I mean, come on — people are having to drink bottled water."

Not that it didn't take Ross herself a while to connect the dots. After a career in Austin real estate and retiring as the Web master for the Texas Department of Insurance, this former West Texas ranch girl wanted to get back to the land. Ross' brother, Joe David Ross, had owned the former cotton farm 13 miles north of Taylor since 1975, and Ross and her elder sister, Kathryn, a retired geologist, moved there around the turn of the new century. They were feeding the cattle a lot of corn when they had to, Ross recalls. Not coincidentally, to her mind, they also kept a refrigerator full of antibiotics.

Her change of heart came when a grandson was born prematurely and she was worried about what the boy would eat.

"I wanted to give him some good meat," she said. "But I didn't know what that meant, either."

After perusing a booklet from the Soil and Water Conservation Society called "Soil Biology Primer" (carbon sequestration, anyone?), she was off to Oregon State University to study under Elaine Ingham, an authority on healthy soils.

The idea is simple: "Soil organisms decompose organic compounds, including manure, plant residue and pesticides, preventing them from entering water and becoming pollutants," according to the booklet. "They store nitrogen and other nutrients that might otherwise enter ground water, and they fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, making it available to plants."

That means that nitrogen fertilizer, which is dumped onto farms and ranches by the barrel in conventional agricultural operations, is produced naturally.

As a result of switching to grass in the mid-'90s, Ross is known in some circles as "the crazy lady with the green pastures." But she doesn't seem to mind.

"This is sweet clover!" she exclaims in one of the paddocks. "This is just free! We're finding the old seed bank is still here. This is an old cotton farm that's been chemicaled to death. But Momma Nature is powerful. It took us 10 to 12 years to quit fighting nature. All of this is Old World knowledge that people have brought to the front again. The movement of people wanting to rehabilitate their land is moving right along with the good food movement."

She points to another section: "That's an alfalfa patch right there. They told us we can't grow alfalfa in this part of the country. It's not easy to rebuild this whole system. All grass is not equal. Until we found the soil biology, we really didn't have the cattle humming."

But all this requires a fundamental shift in thinking, summed up by Ross' son, J.R. Builta, who works the ranch with his wife, Kim Builta:

"What a row farmer considers a weed, we consider food," Builta says.

It also requires careful management vastly different from conventional farming. Each paddock, containing different warm- and cool-weather grasses, is grazed seven or eight times a year and rested otherwise. Natural nitrogen is being slowly released into the soil.

Ross likens it to conducting a symphony.

"Once the biology is in there, it has its own community," she says. "These are live critters. When you come in with a tractor (and a disc) four or five times a year, you kill the community. This is spotted clover. This is free clover! I didn't have to plant it."
Jimmie's Comment: (This clover is an example of 'free clover', both planted and sustained by nature's work.)

On the other side of the road from the clover, a calf born hours earlier is beginning to nurse while its mother eats the placenta. And next to an outbuilding there's a huge compost pile, another critical part of the operation. Running the compost through an extractor with water can produce 3,000 gallons an hour of organism-rich — 25,000 species per teaspoon — of irrigable water. (Ross is also founder and co-owner of Sustainable Growth Texas, which uses liquid compost to fertilize homes and agricultural operations.)

Ross now laughs at the memory of what her brother said when he paid a visit years ago: "Whatever you do, don't go organic." The operation follows organic principles but the beef is not certified organic. ("We just don't see any sense in it right now," Ross says of the rigid certification process.) Nonetheless, Ross says again, there's evidence the end product of all this work is better for you — less fat and better fats, including Omega-3s and no hormones or antibiotics.

No hormones also means it takes longer to raise a beef to slaughter weight: A conventionally raised animal is ready in about 14 months to 16 months; Ross' can take as long as 29 months. (That means from pregnancy to finish, it takes three and one-half years to make money on a beef.) And if the animals have to be treated with antibiotics or fail to gain weight on schedule, they're sent to the sale barn.

The market-ready animals — what Ross calls "a block of butter with four little legs" — are harvested humanely at Readfield's in Bryan. Then the cuts are aged 14 days, cut, wrapped in Cryovac and hard-frozen. In addition to People's in Austin, Old Thyme Garden, an organic nursery in Taylor, sells the meat, and Ross is partnering with Whole Foods' producers alliance to get their products into Austin's flagship store. They also do a mail-order business and will deliver if it's to a nearby destination.

Because grass-fed operations tend to be small, they can't hope to achieve the economies of scale of so-called factory farms and that translates into higher prices, even though it costs eight times as much to feed a cow out of a sack as on grass: A 12-ounce to 18-ounce bone-in Betsy Ross ribeye is $13.50 per pound, New York strips $14.25 and ground meat $5, a good bit north of supermarket prices.

But customers say the meat doesn't evaporate when it hits the grill and the more flavorful product — there's more than just texture to this cow — often means it takes less meat to feed a crowd. Ross and her sister usually split a single-serving sirloin.

There's often a three-month wait for tenderloins.

Their customers come looking for them.

They don't want economies of scale.

They want to make food that's good for you and, not to get too high-falutin', reflects the web of life.

"There's more than one way of doing things," Betsy Ross says. (And yes, that's really her name.) "Nothing sits alone. We're all so connected."

pbeach@statesman.com; 445-3603

Natural Beef? Doesn't Sound Like it......Do You Find Grass Mentioned Anywhere?

Stika Says CAB Natural Product Line Developed To Meet The Needs Of Consumers

(Nashville, TN) "John Stika, president of Certified Angus Beef®, said the company made the decision to enter the natural beef market to meet the demands of their food service and retail partners. Stika, speaking at Ivy Natural Solutions conference for natural beef producers and brand managers, said their customers had been requesting a CAB natural product for more than 7 years. CAB made the decision to enter the natural market in 2004.

“Over the past 30 years CAB has earned a reputation for exceptional quality and consistency based on sound, science-based specifications. We decided that for us to enter the natural market with a brand other than Certified Angus Beef Natural would not be taking advantage of the franchise we have developed and would not serve us, our partners nor our customers very well,” Stika said.

“CAB does not see natural beef as better, than conventional beef. Both are excellent, safe, wholesome products. There are consumers, however, that feel natural production systems are important and are a critical part of their buying decision. By placing Certified Angus Beef Natural in the meat case along side our conventional CAB products, we are offering these consumers a choice,” Stika added.

Certified Angus Beef defines their natural program as a “never ever” program. To qualify, the animal must not have been administered any supplemental hormones, beta-agonists, antibiotics, including ionophores, nor have been fed any animal by products any time during its life.

Stika said, “Our Natural program is projected to be only 1.5 % of CAB sales in 2007, up from 0.5 % in 2006. However, the demand is increasing rapidly. The growth of CAB Natural in our food service division is currently limited by product supply.”

The conference for natural beef producers and branded beef managers was held during the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association convention in Nashville. Ivy Natural Solutions (INS) sponsored the conference as part of their first anniversary celebration. INS was founded a year ago to meet increasing natural beef producers’ demands for natural production inputs.

INS provides “plate friendly” products and services that enable cattlemen and beef brands achieve their brand specifications. INS products include ProTernative® Continuous Fed Formula – a natural, rumen-specific yeast that enhances performance and maintains rumen health and function when natural beef programs do not allow the use of ionophores, antibiotics or implants – and ProTernative® Stress Formula, a natural GI tract-specific yeast that helps improve feed consumption and health when cattle are under stress. Helping keep cattle healthy minimizes the fall-out rate if cattle are being fed in a program that does not allow therapeutic antibiotics."

Jimmie's Comments: Natural CAB beef remains unnaturally raised beef as long as it is predominantly grain fed and finished beef product. All 'natural' beef programs that fail to indicate the diet source are feeding essentially 100% grain in their programs, and as you can see from the final paragraph above, they are already looking for and using some unnatural natural additives to help boost performance.

Square Bales in a Round Ring - Not Quite a Fit! For People or For Hay..........

Southeast Texas just had a few days of temperatures reaching the freezing point, seems unusual for this time of year, but fortunately no pipes burst and the ice in the troughs was minimal, but then lately I've got water leaks on what seems a daily basis, that's surely as effective at preventing pipes from bursting as setting a faucet on drip!

I've been feeding alfalfa as a supplement for my British Whites some years now, but it was only this past winter that had me wishing for square hay feeders. Prior to last winter I fed the alfalfa in flakes on top of their round bales of coastal and that worked fairly well. But last winter saw a shortage of hay and the coastal I had lined up didn't work out. With greed running rampant in the hay business, the price of good coastal hay per bale plus delivery to my place was equal to and sometimes more than the cost of shipping in cow grade alfalfa from Nebraska. Thus I chose to ship in nothing but alfalfa last winter, and my cattle thrived like no other winter.

Shipping costs ran higher this year, but the total out of pocket cost per ton for Dairy Quality alfalfa was still equal to or less than buying a decent quality 20% protein grain by the ton in 50 lb bags. So this year I'm feeding coastal baled from my pastures as well as crabgrass hay out of Louisiana, and providing alfalfa as their supplemental protein, but feeding it by the bale rather than topping round bales of regular hay forage with the alfalfa.

As you can see from the photo , the big alfalfa squares barely fit into my rings and I have to bust up that middle once they've eaten down enough of it to make it doable -- to make the hay accessible all around the feeding area of the ring (also, these girls are getting alfalfa from last summer that went through a 20 plus inch flood, thus the dark bottom side that you see!). I'm hoping a welding shop in Pennington will be able to make some square feeders for me. I've looked around online and most of what I find is very very heavy square hay feeders from up North that look more functional as stationary objects in a feedlot, which will not work here. I try to move the haying area all around my pastures to avoid excessive manure build up, and follow up with busting up the manure with a drag harrow. In the second photo you can see the adjoining pasture where my big herd is being fed and that it's time to move their hay rings to fresh ground. I try not to feed more than twice without moving the rings to clean ground, and so really heavy feeders aren't practical.

British White Calves in the Summer of 2006

I really like this shot from this past summer, we were very fortunate here in Deep East Texas to get ample rainfall until about September. In my memory, September is supposed to always be a month for rains in East Texas, but I think it's just significant events I recall in many Septembers that had rain in the background. Maybe I'll get a good shot of these same calves this morning, it's a crisp and clear day.

GrassFed British White Beef - JWest's Mazarati - Excellent Herd Sire Potential

Consider this.....with the price of beef skyrocketing at the market these days, and the healthful quality of that beef very questionable.....isn't it time to seek out healthy natural grassfed beef straight from the producer? Buying a whole beef is maybe too much too handle, but you can find a friend to take a side of beef and you the other, about 300 or so pounds of beef you'd need to find space in the freezer for.

If you buy straight from a Grassfed producer you would pay from $1 to $1.50 a pound live weight of the steer, you'd then pay the processor about .40 cents a pound for actual carcass weight to cut and wrap it the way you want them to. Average cost per pound of beef for your family just dropped tremendously, and you're providing yourself and your children with the best of nutrition..........you won't worry so much if their diet is nothing but hamburgers.....it will be hamburgers providing optimal Fatty Acids, CLA's, Vitamin E, Vitamin A......and more.

Put fresh beef in the freezer and you'll never shop for grocery store beef again. Guaranteed. Put Grassfed beef in the freezer and you won't have to worry so much about the fat in that delicious ribeye, it will be heart healthy fat you can enjoy.

Consider the economics of buying a Grassfed steer straight from a producer. Too many people don't realize that it is still done today, and not just in rural America. Many grassfed beef producers will arrange to ship your beef to you in the city. These days, buying just a few cuts or packages from Grassfed Beef Suppliers can cost a bundle over what beef costs at the grocery store or supermarket. You can avoid all that by contacting a beef producer direct and they'll have a beef animal transported to a harvest facility nearby and then you tell the harvest facility how long you want it aged and how you want it processed. If you want 2 inch ribeyes, they will cut you two inch ribeyes. If you don't want a lot of roasts, well they'll just make those cuts into your ground beef instead. The price is the same per pound no matter what you decide. And the cost of processing is on the actual beef carcass poundage processed and packaged for you. If you are on a budget, it's worth saving to pay for the steer and the processing. It really puts money in the bank in the long run. Not to mention the better eating quality of the beef and the superior nutrition of the beef that will be in your freezer.....and not at an overpriced Walmart that injects their meat with.......wierd stuff.

Ask for British White Grassfed Beef, ask for true Grassfed Fed, no corn and no emergency byproducts to get through the winter if you're buying a steer for harvest in early Spring. There are various studies examining the length of time it takes for a steer's muscle and fat to convert back to a Heart Healthy state for optimum nutritional benefit, and it does take a few months and more for that to occur.

A steer with superior grassfed genetics will thrive on grass hay and high quality Alfalfa Hay as a supplement. Always ask what they're eating, and don't presume they haven't received antibiotics or hormone implants or long periods of grain supplement, you need to ask and if possible visit the farm or ranch that you're considering buying from direct.

Also to keep in mind......look for grassfed beef producers who focus their breeding programs on moderate sized animals -- you'll never have an optimum grassfed eating experience from a steer whose sire is over 1600 pounds and whose dam weighs more than 1200 pounds......the big guy just can't reach finish condition on grass until he's pushing 30 months old, and you won't realize the optimal healthy...and TASTY... finish of grassfed beef with a satisfactory level of that healthy grassfed fat.