the wisdom of free range beef

[OliverB]

I'm not sure where this might fit best here on eGullet, hopefully this is a good spot.

I live in the East Bay area east of San Francisco, at the foot of beautiful Mount Diablo. Recently I came across an article about a book written by Edwin Bryant, about his travels west in the years of 1847-48. He came by Mount Diablo, visiting the only ranch that was there, that of a Mr. Marsh.

I just received a copy of the book and randomly happened to open it at a place that was quoted in the paper, but not in full. I thought it's interesting enough to share:

==========

The house of Dr. Marsh being fully occupied, we made our beds in a shed, a short distance from it. Suspended from one of the poles forming the frame of this shed was a portion of the carcass of a recently slaughtered beef. The meat was very fat, the muscular portions of it presenting that marbled appearance, produced by a mixture of the fat and lean, so agreeable to the sight and palate of the epicure. The horned cattle of California, which I have thus far seen, are the largest and the handsomest in shape which I ever saw. There is certainly no breed in the United States equalling them in size. They, as well as the horses, subsist entirely on the indigenous grasses, at all seasons of the year; and such are the nutritious qualities of the herbage, that the former are always in condition for slaughtering, and the latter have as much flesh upon them as is desirable, unless (which is often the case) they are kept up at hard work and denied the privilege of eating, or are broken down by hard riding. The varieties of grass are very numerous, and nearly all of them are heavily seeded when ripe, and are equal, if not superior, as food for animals, to corn and oats.

=======

Not only was I surprised to read about 'epicures' loving the marbled (prime) beef that long ago, but in particular his words about the grazing and nutritious values of all the different grasses struck me as interesting. Too bad mass production and price pressure lead us to the sad excuses of beef we find in the supermarket today.

The book appears to be online:

http://www.authorama.com/what-i-saw-in-california-2.html

Can't wait to read the whole thing, especially the parts about the area I live in now. And it's nice to see that more and more farmers seem to come back to this old wisdom and we find more and more grass fed and free range options to buy. Just received a turkey hen that's been living outside all it's life, roaming an entire farm.

[LRunkle]

I am hesitant to post such a politically incorrect thought, but since I have never seen this point of view voiced, I thought I would offer it for discussion. I am from Oklahoma and have family that raises cattle, and am familiar with the land practices associated with grass fed cattle in this state. In order to provide the most efficient weight gain when cattle are grazed on grass in this area, prairie, with its ecologically diverse grasses, shrubs and small flowering plants is plowed under and seeded with a monoculture of Bermuda grass which is hign in protein, relished by cattle and very drought resistant. It does not support meadow larks, mice, rabbits, quail, etc., etc. Cattle can be brought to market weight on Bermuda grass but it takes a good deal more time as opposed to the rapid weight gain attainable in feedlots. If all beef were grass fed, it would require much more acreage devoted to cattle, less acreage supporting wildlife. The same argument could be made for poultry. Imagine if all the chickens in an industrial chicken production facility were turned loose to range free. How much additional unsullied land would be needed for them. How hard would it be to keep the droppings from the chickens from contaminating the groundwater(already a major problem with confined chicken farms)? I find it ironic that the most highly prized beef of all, Kobe, has a diet far from grass fed. Same general argument applies to farmed fish vs wild stock. There are not going to be larger stocks of wild salmon ever, so what there is left must not be squandered. Therefore, I don't turn up my nose at farmed salmon(yes, I am aware there are some ecologic problems with salmon farms in many areas). The problem at its heart is too many people, so we have to accept some forms of mass produced food, and grin and bear it.

[Moopheus]

If all beef were grass fed, it would require much more acreage devoted to cattle, less acreage supporting wildlife. The same argument could be made for poultry. Imagine if all the chickens in an industrial chicken production facility were turned loose to range free. How much additional unsullied land would be needed for them. ... The problem at its heart is too many people, so we have to accept some forms of mass produced food, and grin and bear it.

This is partly true--to produce the same quantity of free-range meat as industrial factory meat would be more land-use intensive. It would of course also be much more expensive, and so unlikely that the same quantity of meat would be demanded by the market, unless government subsidies were increased dramatically. As it is, in the US we're constantly losing farmland, as it gets "developed" into McMansions and strip malls. It's not necessarily a choice of food v. wildlife, but food v. car lots and Wal-marts. But we don't actually have to accept factory-farmed meat, because we don't really need that quantity of meat. It's a choice, and agribusiness and the government push the economics toward cheap, low-value food.

[nibor]

LRunkle, thanks for your input. These issues are complicated, and you are right on about the problem being too many people. We just don't want to have to live with the consequences of our actions. For instance, take your statement that there will not be more wild stocks of salmon again, ever. If humans were to go extinct (or undergo a huge reduction in population size), salmon would probably bounce back pretty nicely! At least, while there are still some left to bounce back. I don't wish ill on my fellow humans but wish something would happen to turn things around with respect to our relationship with the natural world.

[Moopheus]

LRunkle, thanks for your input. These issues are complicated, and you are right on about the problem being too many people.

The roblem is only partly too many people, at least in the short term. I mean, I take a fairly neo-Malthusian position--populations tend to increase to the limits of available resources, and then crash, though humans have been clever at leveraging our position with our farming technology. But increasing the food supply has generally meant increasing populations, not so much declining hunger. And agriculture can only stretch so far in a world were resources are intrisically finite. So in the long run I think we're in a bad spot. In the short run we're actually producing sufficient food, but our production and distribution system is horrifically inefficient--somewhere around 40 percent of the food produced in the US is never eaten. Other industrialized countries are almost as bad. We could, in fact, ease up on the industrial production if we didn't waste so much.

Food waste photos

[nibor]

The roblem is only partly too many people, at least in the short term. I mean, I take a fairly neo-Malthusian position--populations tend to increase to the limits of available resources, and then crash, though humans have been clever at leveraging our position with our farming technology. But increasing the food supply has generally meant increasing populations, not so much declining hunger. And agriculture can only stretch so far in a world were resources are intrisically finite. So in the long run I think we're in a bad spot. In the short run we're actually producing sufficient food, but our production and distribution system is horrifically inefficient--somewhere around 40 percent of the food produced in the US is never eaten. Other industrialized countries are almost as bad. We could, in fact, ease up on the industrial production if we didn't waste so much.

Food waste photos

I almost missed the link to the Food waste photos. Some are pretty shocking. Wonder what that ditch of bananas smells like in the hot sun.

[paulraphael]

A big part of the problem is that any reasonable comparisons of grass to grain-finished beef has been hijacked by people who compare the best, utopian, idyllic free range farms with the worst, most abusive, industrial feedlot operations.

It's not a fair comparison. If we're going to compare methods, than we should compare good, thoughtful implementations of each. And yes, they exist!

[crinoidgirl]

The abusive industrial feedlots are by far the most prevalent implementation of the corn-finished beef model, if we go by sheer numbers. And "free-range" does not equal grass-fed, since there is no standard for that (cf "free-range" chickens, which may only have access to a small patch of grass, but otherwise be subject to factory-type conditions).

But in general, grass-fed cattle are not fed on a monoculture of Bermuda grass.

Also, chickens and cattle are not exclusive. On a well-run farm, the chickens can follow the cows onto the pasture that the cows have vacated, feeding on larvae in the cow manure and spreading the manure while they're scratching.