Skip to main content

Local and Grass-fed - Worth More?

Value is a term that is not often applied to food.  In this country, most of us seem more interested in affordability (some would say cheapness) when it comes to our food.  Indeed, we spend the lowest percentage of our income on food of any developed country in the world.  Our cheap food "policies," intentional and otherwise, have serious consequences for the environment and for the people who grow our food (farmers, ranchers, and the people who work for them).

We produce grass-fed lamb and beef for local customers.  What does this mean?  For us, it means that we feed only grass to our lambs and steers.  Producing a high quality and delicious product strictly on grass requires significant expertise in pasture management, animal husbandry, and animal selection.  Unlike producers who sell into the commodity market, this means that we must manage the entire process - from raising the animal to processing the meat to selling the final product.  As a example, for me to sell one package of lamb chops at a local farmers' market, I must spend 7-8 months caring for the lamb (and 12 months caring for its mother).  Because I'm required to obtain USDA inspection before I can sell my meat, I must make two trips to Dixon (to my processor) and back (once to have lambs processed and once to pick up meat).  Finally, I must store my meat in a county-approved facility before finally offering it for sale at a farmers' market.  In the industrial food system, each of these functions is performed by a separate entity; in a local food system, these functions are often performed by the farmer.  I believe strongly that the local system results in better food that's better for the land and the people who raised it; I also believe that it may be more "expensive" to produce food this way.

Among the challenges that we face in producing local and grass-fed meat is that these terms mean different things to different producers and customers.  For some, lamb that is produced in Idaho but processed in Dixon might be considered "local."  There are producers that insist that animals that are fed grain in a pasture (rather than in a feedlot) are "grass-fed."  While this lack of standard definitions for these terms is frustrating to me at times, I believe that the ability of individual producers to talk directly with customers about these definitions is more important than standardization.

What does this ambiguity mean for my customers?  First, I need to educate my customers about our values and production practices.  By grass-fed, for example, we mean that our animals are eating grass - nothing else!  We value this type of production because we feel that it results in a healthier product (for the eater and for the land).  By local, we mean that our animals were raised locally (in Placer and Nevada County) and processed as locally as USDA inspection rules allow (our beef is processed in Reno).

To return to the question posed in the title of this entry, I think local and grass-fed meat is worth more than conventionally raised meat for several reasons.  Local and grass-fed meat is more nutritionally dense - our customers get more (and higher quality) nutrients per dollar spent on our meat versus something that comes out of the industrial food system.  Second, because our product is processed in smaller batches (and generally at smaller facilities), more care is taken with its handling.  Our restaurant customers tell us that they don't have nearly as much waste with our lamb as they do with commodity lamb, for example.  Finally, because my customers can see my animals and the land that I manage directly, I have greater accountability to my community.  I feel obligated to take greater care because my neighbors are also my customers.

In many ways, producing and selling meat locally requires us to return to an older system while working within a regulatory and marketing system that favors large scale production based on cheap petroleum.  If we simply try to compete with the modern system on price, we'll fail.  If we compete in terms of value, flavor, nutrition, community and land stewardship, we'll succeed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trade Offs

As we were building fence for the soon-to-be-lambing ewes this morning, someone drove by and asked my partner Roger how long it took to set up the electro-net fencing we use for the sheep. Roger replied, "It's not too bad," to which the driver said, "Seems like a lot of work." Roger's answer - which both of us use with some frequency, was, "Yeah - but this way we don't have to feed any hay!" The driver, who obviously wasn't a rancher, didn't understand - and I suspect even some of my rancher friends don't understand the trade off we're making. Building electric fence is a lot of work - wouldn't it be easier just to feed hay?

The paddock that Roger and I built this morning encloses about 5.75 acres of high quality forage. Since the ewes are on the verge of lambing, their forage demand is peaking. They're eating nearly twice as much grass now as they need in the late summer - after all, many of them eating for three (and p…

No Easy Answers Part 2

In mid October, some friends who graze their cattle in the mountains of western Lassen County (less than 200 miles from our home), became the first ranchers to have cattle “officially” killed by wolves in California in nearly a century. Wildlife officials confirmed that the Lassen pack killed a 600-pound heifer; four more heifers died (and were partially eaten by wolves), but the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) couldn’t confirm the cause of death. While I learned about the depredations shortly after they happened through the rancher grapevine, news of my friends’ losses weren’t made public until the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation issued a joint press release this week. The October 28 edition of the Sacramento Bee ran the story.
If you’ve read my previous blogs about wolves, you’ll probably know that I’ve frequently been frustrated with the Bee’s coverage. The paper has run guest opinions disguised as news articles, and appar…

Humbled and Excited

More than 20 years ago, I went to work for the California Cattlemen's Association (CCA). After two internships, I'd been hired by my friend and mentor John Braly as the membership director in 1992. By 1996, I'd been promoted to assistant vice president - pretty heady stuff for a young guy who hadn't grown up in the industry. I started looking for new challenges. Dr. Jim Oltjen, who was (and is) the beef extension specialist at UC Davis (my undergraduate alma mater) suggested that I think about going to graduate school to prepare for a career in extension. I considered it, but the timing wasn't right.

Fast forward to 2013 (or so) - I'd been working as a part-time community education specialist in our local University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) office for several years. The farm advisors in the office - Roger Ingram and Cindy Fake - suggested that I consider getting a master's degree and applying for a future farm advisor job. This time the id…