Grass Based Health

Happy Valentine’s Day!

2012-02-14T10:05:00.000-08:00

Truly "Heart-Healthy!"

To mark Valentine’s day, I propose - with tongue firmlyin cheek - a new “Heart Check” logo. What do you think?

I’m posting again after a long absence. A lot has beenhappening and a great deal has changed. My goal is to publish regularly, but thenature of my posts may need to change.I really won’t know that until I actually startwriting again, so here goes!

Last September I changed jobs after more than 16 years. Iam now Barenbrug USA’s Forage Product Manager. Every daypresents multiple learning (and re-learning!) moments with frequent calls tothe long-term archive for information I used to have a firm grip on. It’s greatto be working in forage agriculture again, but the seed industry is new to me.Barenbrug, a family owned company founded in 1904, is among the top 20 seedcompanies, worldwide. The vast majority of our business is grass seed.Barenbrug is truly “Great in Grass!” And they support my continued “Grass BasedHealth” activities. I presented a paper, “Saturated Fat and Cholesterol: HealthHazards or Vital Nutrients?” at the 2012 American Forage and Grassland Council Conferencein Louisville, KY, January 10. I’ve posted a video that combines a slide setwith an audio recording here.

As I’ve walked through this time of transition, I’vebecome aware of all the anxiety, conflict, and frustration I’d been living within my previous job. I wasn’t consciously aware of it then, but now that I’vemade the move it’s obvious. It’s similar to the time I realized, while carryingtwo twenty pound bags of bird seed to my car one day, that I used to carry morethan that around with me all thetime. Sometimes we need a push to make a change.

One effect of the anxiety regarding the impending careerchange was a loss of focus on my dietary discipline, I’m afraid. And Iexperienced the completely predictable results. So I’m applying the principlesand re-establishing the practices that worked before and are working again. Nothingmagic, just basic carbohydrate restriction and intermittent fasting. I hope toget to my goal weight by May.

Why May? Because Nancy and I will be on the 5th Low Carb Cruise! Neither of us have been on a cruise before, and we’re looking forward to meetingfolks whose books and blogs have helped us on our journey. A perfect way tocelebrate our 35th anniversary.

Last August I presented a poster at thefirst Ancestral Health Symposium. This August I’ll present “The Reality ofRuminants and Liebeg’s Barrel: Examining the New ‘Conventional Wisdom’” at Ancestral Health Symposium 2012!

I’ve been invited to speak at the Wise Traditions 2012 on the “Science and Art of Pasture Feeding.” This will be their 13thannual conference, held in Santa Clara, California Nov 9-12.

Primal / Paleo Valentine

So, let’s all walk forward into whatever this New Yearbrings our way. If you’ve fallen short of your resolutions, you can alwaysstart over. It’s never too late. A re-evaluation may be necessary to make surethey’re realistic. A resolution to lose 30 pounds in a month probably needs tobe re-thought. But great changes can be accomplished, one step at a time. Lastweekend we saw a friend who’s lost 180 pounds, and is off all cholesterol,blood pressure, and diabetes medications!

Is Grass Fed Beef Really “Rich in Omega 3s?”

2011-10-02T10:13:00.000-07:00

The subjects of n-6 and n-3 fatty acid (commonly referred to as Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids) ratios, dietary fiber, salt, and anti-oxidants came up frequently during the Ancestral Health Symposium back in August. I was frankly surprised at the concern several presenters voiced about the last three. I thought they’d been fairly debunked, but apparently not. Perhaps I’ll discuss them in a future post. I’ve written before about the relative importance of grass-fed meat in our diet, and the overstated benefits of grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef. But this subject came up again recently on the Nutrition and Metabolism Society e-mail list, so I think it’s worth a re-visit.

Any discussion of n-6 and n-3 fatty acids in general, and in beef in particular, ought to include the following points: the strength of data suggesting their importance; the importance of the n-6:n-3 ratios; and the n-3 content of beef vs. other foodstuffs.

The literature discussing the benefits of n-3 fatty acids is replete with words like “associated,” and “linked.” Tom Naughton’s “Science for Smart People” presentation is a great introduction to interpreting these words and the importance of claims made with them. The following statement comes from a “A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef” (Daley, et al. 2010):

“Danish physicians observed that Greenland Eskimos had an exceptionally low incidence of heart disease and arthritis despite the fact that they consumed a diet high in fat.”

Can you say “Greenland Paradox?” I doubt that was the only dietary difference. It would seem prudent to keep this in mind while we discuss the reduction in coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, depression, etc. that have been listed as beneficial effect of n-3 supplementation. In addition, evidence exists to suggest that concern about ingesting too much polyunsaturated fatty acids in general, and n-3 fatty acids in particular, is warranted.

Cordain, et al. reported the n-6:n-3 ratio in tissues from wild ruminants and compared them to values for beef that had been published previously. This paper was then referenced in a post on Science Blog from Purdue University:

"Both grass-fed steers and the wild ruminants have a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids slightly above two in meat. In other words, two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3," Watkins says. "That ratio is much lower than the ratios of 5-to-1 to 13-to-1 reported in previous studies for grain-fed steers."

However, the published range in n-6:n-3 ratios in “grass-fed” and “grain-fed” beef is far greater than that suggested in this paper, as shown in the data from eight papers presented in Table 1. Three of the studies cited in Table 1 having a lower ratio in grain-fed beef than the range stated by Cordain, et al.

Given that many variables (i.e. age of animal, sex, breed, tissue, management details) can affect the n-6:n-3 ratio, it is unwise to make blanket statements about what those ratios are. In addition, Garia, et al. demonstrated that some amount of grain can be fed to cattle without producing a high-value n-6:n-3 ratio in the beef.

Statistical significance does not necessarily equate to biological significance. It does not appear that we know enough to clearly state that these are important differences. Tom Naughton’s presentation, once again, makes this point. In addition, there appears to be a range in what the desirable range ought to be.

The World Health Organization recommends that polyunsaturated fats make up 3 - 7% of the energy in the diet. Some experts advise that one should consume a minimum of 3% of energy from omega-6 fatty acids and between 0.5% and 1% from omega-3. Research scientists recommend ratios varying from 5:1 to 10:1 omega-6 to omega-3. Other experts suggest a ratio of between 1:1 and 4:1 as being optimal. What are we getting? The current ratio in our diet is estimated to be 14:1 to 20:1 (from here).

Focusing on ratios instead of quantity can be misleading. A helpful list of n- 6 and n- 3 amounts in various foodstuffs is published here. Soybean oil has an n-6:n-3 ratio of 7.42, less than 4 of the ratio values for grain-fed beef presented in Table 1. But an ounce (28g) of soybean oil contains 14,361 mg of n-6 fatty acids, 21.5 times the amount contained in 4 ounces of raw grain-fed ground beef (668 mg n-6)! The n-6:n-3 ratio of roasted chicken leg meat is 9.53, essentially the same as listed for conventional ground beef. But one cup (140 g) contains 2,268 mg of n-6.

This same source states that grass fed ground beef contains 100 mg of n-3 per 4 ounces (raw). Considering that one 3.75 ounce (106 g) can of Vital Choice’s albacore solid white tuna (yes, tuna!) in extra virgin olive oil contains almost 3 grams (2,926 mg) of n-3 fatty acids it is, at best, an exaggeration to call grass fed beef a “rich” source of n-3 fatty acids. Even a comparison of grass fed ground beef with grain fed ground beef doesn’t justify the label: This same source shows only a 22 mg difference per 4 ounces of raw meat. What happens when the meat is cooked? A 4 ounce (cooked weight), pan-browned ground beef patty only contains 20 mg, so cooking loss appears to be significant.

Examining the data in these papers demonstrates the fact that beef, no matter how it’s produced, is not a rich source of n-3 fatty acids. And beef, not matter how it’s produced, is not a rich source of n- 6 fatty acids, either.

I want to emphasize that I’m focusing solely on the nutritional aspect of the beef, not on the issues of confined animal feeding operations, grain production, animal health, etc. I’m aware of these matters and I am NOT minimizing them. I celebrated my 55^th birthday by presenting a poster at the Ancestral Health Symposium, but my celebratory birthday steak was postponed until the following morning. I pulled off the interstate and enjoyed a delicious steak and eggs breakfast. The very next thing I encountered as I got back on the highway was a large beef feedlot. The sight and smell were impressive, to say the least. Addressing these issues by exaggerating nutrient differences and their importance, however, is NOT a winning strategy. Instead, we might want to look at the monetary side.

It’s a good time to be a grass farmer – turning green grass into dollars, via a grazing ruminant. Today’s market has created a tremendous potential for income from the stocker business – buying beef calves and feeding them on pasture - gaining 200 – 300 lbs in 150 days or less - before selling them as feeder cattle. The following is from a Beef Magazine on-line article, which seems to be quoting this Oklahoma State University Extension Service publication:

"Heavy-feeder prices increased to new seasonal highs in early July and are still holding at remarkably strong levels," says Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing specialist. "The rollback between calf and feeder prices is very narrow; almost zero in some cases, resulting in very high stocker value of gain."

Peel offered this example for the first week of August: the Oklahoma combined auction price for Medium and Large #1 steers weighing 515 lbs. was $138.56/cwt.; it was $138.05/cwt. for steers weighing 727 lbs.

"This implies a value of gain of $1.37/lb. for 212 lbs. of gain," Peel says. For steers weighing 825 lbs., the price was $132.50/cwt., resulting in a value of gain of $1.22/lb. for 310 lbs. of gain."

For the record, value of gain is defined as the gross sale price of a head of cattle minus the gross purchase price, divided by the pounds of gain. High calf and feeder prices, and the narrow price rollback, magnify the current opportunity.

"There is more incentive than there has ever been to grow and manage forage," Peel emphasizes. "Wheat pasture prospects in the southern Great Plains appear very poor at this point but the market is clearly encouraging somebody, somewhere, that has forage to put stocker gains on feeder cattle.

"The feeder cattle price structure will continue to offer high value of gain as a market incentive to add weight to cattle prior to feedlot placement. Stocker margins will generally be attractive for stocker production over a wide range of beginning and ending weights and total weight gain."

So, once again, there are valid reasons for eating grass fed beef – including the taste! But promoting grass fed beef because of its n-6:n-3 ratio is, at best, misleading. Beef, regardless of how it is fed, in not a “rich” source of n-3 or n-6 fatty acids. If you want more n-3 fatty acids in your diet, eat fatty fish and/or take a supplement. If you want less n-6 fatty acids in your diet, cut the grains and vegetable oils.

References:

Cordain, L., B.A. Watkins, G.L. Florant, M. Kelher, L. Rogers, Y Li. 2002. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56, 181–191

Daley, C.A., A. Abbott, P.S. Doyle, G.A. Nader, S. Larson. 2010. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal 9:10

Descalzo, A., E.M. Insani, A. Biolatto, A.M. Sancho, P.T. Garcia, N.A. Pensel. 2005. Influence of pasture or grain-based diets supplemented with vitamin E on antioxidant/oxidative balance of Argentine beef. Meat Science 70:35-44.

Garcia, P.T., N.A. Pensel, A.M. Sancho, N.J. Latimori, A.M. Kloster, M.A. Amigone, J.J. Casal. 2008. Beef lipids in relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentina. Meat Science 79:500-8.

Leheska, J.M., L.D. Thompson, J.C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J.C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, M.F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. Journal Animal Science 86:3575-85.

Nuernberg, K., D. Dannenberger, G. Nuernberg, K. Ender, J. Voigt, N.D. Scollan, J.D. Wood, G.R. Nute, R.I. Richardson. 2005. Effect of a grass-based and a concentrate feeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science 94:137-47.

Ponnampalam, E.N., N.J. Mann, A.J. Sinclair. 2006. Effect of feeding systems on omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beef cuts, potential impact on human health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 15(1):21-9.

Realini, C.E., S.K. Duckett, G.W. Brito, M.D. Rizza, D. De Mattos. 2004. Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science 66:567-77.

S. K. Duckett, J. P. S. Neel, J. P. Fontenot and W. M. Clapham. 2009. Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: III. Tissue proximate, fatty acid, vitamin, and cholesterol content. Journal Animal Science 87:2961-2970.

The Big Picture

2011-08-02T21:58:00.000-07:00

It’s almost time for the Ancestral Health Symposium. I’m looking forward to seeing friends, meeting lots of folks, and listening to so many of the people I’ve been learning from these past few years. I’ll be presenting a poster on Saturday, August 6^th. A marvelous way to celebrate my birthday!

The title of my poster is “Grass Based Health: The Big Picture.” My take-home point is that a human diet based on animal products – particularly those from ruminant animal – is far more “sustainable” than plant based diets.

As we consider this topic, we need to understand that our perception of “wilderness” and “nature” has been as distorted as our understanding of what constitutes a “healthy diet.” I find the following quote by D. F. Lott extremely helpful:

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans” (Lott, 2002).

When Europeans first arrived in North America, they found anything but a primeval landscape. Instead, they encountered a land significantly altered by humans through the use of fire, sophisticated agricultural techniques, mining, and road and mound building (Mann, 2006).

“The virgin forest was not encountered in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,” wrote historian Stephen Pyne, “it was invented in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Far from destroying pristine wilderness, that is, Europeans bloodily created it. (Mann, 2006)

With that background as introduction, here is the text from my poster.

Introduction:

Forage plants are those plants eaten by animals directly as pasture, crop residue, or immature cereal crops, those cut for fodder, and conserved for later use as hay or silage. These diverse crops vary widely in their adaptation and feed quality. They are typically low in fat, high in fiber, and not utilizable by humans.

Grass, clover, and forbes pasture. This plant material is high in moisture, crude
protein and fiber and low in fat. It's also not directly utilizable by humans.

While forage crops can be grown on ground incapable of producing feedstuffs that are utilizable by humans, greater yields can be achieved on better arable ground. These crops have limited economic value until converted into meat, milk, and fiber. Three quarters of the feed consumed by the United States’ beef cattle is forage.

The symbiotic relationship between the ruminant animal and the microbial population in the rumen permits these mammals to thrive on a low-fat, high-fiber diet. This production of high-quality protein and animal fat is the truly sustainable form of agriculture.

The ruminant and it's associated microbial population convert this
material that cannot sustain humans into products that can -
high quality protein and animal fat.

Aspects of sustainability:

Population: The archeological record and anthropological research demonstrates that the human diet was based upon animal products. Research confirms that the modern diet ought to be, too. The mistaken belief that the healthy diet is a plant-based one, one based upon carbohydrates, has produced an epidemic of chronic disease in the United States. The costs of this epidemic are unsustainable. Diets based upon animal products produce improvements in a wide variety of chronic diseases. These diets are more sustainable – people stay on them – as compared with low-fat and semi-starvation diets.

Grass-fed ribeye steaks. Grass-fed is NOT low fat!

Ecology: Grasslands, including sown pasture and rangeland, are among the largest ecosystems in the world. The proportion of the earth's land area covered by grasslands in 2000 was estimated at 3.5 billion hectares (8.6 billion acres), representing 26% of the world land area and 70% of the world agricultural area. There are 255 million hectares (630 million acres) of pasture, pastured woodland, pastured cropland and public grazing lands in the US. Less than 9 percent of the cropland is pasture.

Perennial forage crops increase soil organic matter, fixing more carbon than woodland. Pasture crops reduce soil erosion, improving the infiltration of water into the soil profile and surface water quality. Without managed grazing or periodic burning, many grasslands will not remain grasslands. Ecological succession results in encroachment by woody, less productive species.

The following image is a close-up from the middle of this picture.

Grass grows naturally in a wide variety of sites, making it an
ideal crop. It's always better to work with nature!

Economic: Forage-based livestock production systems are fundamental to the global economy, and are more economically sustainable than annual cropping systems. Grasslands contribute to the livelihoods of more than 800 million people, worldwide. They are a source of food and forage, energy and wildlife habitat. The single greatest source of new wealth (the conversion of natural resource into a salable commodity) in the US is the conversion of grass into beef.

Pasture-based agriculture produces increased wealth while requiring fewer non-renewable inputs than annual crops. Biological nitrogen fixation by forage legumes and efficient nutrient cycling via the grazing animals’ dung and urine reduces fertilizer requirements. Managed grazing of adapted pasture mixes reduces pesticide use. These perennial crops require less tillage, cultivation, and harvest than annual crops, meaning less equipment is needed, and less petroleum used.

The key to farm sustainability is lowering the cost of production, rather than achieving maximum production. Well-managed pasture-based production systems are the means of achieving the lowest cost of production of animal products.

Achieving an acceptable profit at lower levels of production means more farmers can remain in business or begin production. More farmers means healthier rural communities.

Conclusion:

Our grasslands are not widely appreciated, nor are they close to achieving their potential. Important research and demonstration is needed, as well as adoption of suitable practices from other countries that have better developed grazing industries.

The adoption of diets based upon animal product instead of cereal products is the sustainable choice!

References:

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. Are grasslands under threat? Accessed July 21, 2011.

Heath, M. E., R. F. Barnes, D. S. Metcalfe, eds. 1985. Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mann, Charles C. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Vintage.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2011. State Fact Sheets. Accessed July 18, 2011.

BBQ'd Mushroom and Spinach Salad

2011-07-30T07:13:00.000-07:00

We got this recipe from Smoke and Spice: The Real Way to Barbecue by Cheryl and Bill Jamison.

12 ounces portobello mushrooms
Coarse Kosher or sea salt

Dressing:
2 Roma or Italian plum tomatoes, seeded and chopped
1/3 cup extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar
1 tablespoon chopped fresh basil
1 tablespoon minced fresh parsley
3 garlic cloves, minced
2 scallions, sliced
Salt and coarsely ground black pepper to taste

1 large bag of spinach, or equivalent
Crumbled feta cheese, optional
Sunflower seeds, optional

I've done this in my barbecue/smoker, but I guess you could use a covered grill using low, indirect heat.

Slice the mushrooms into large, bite-size pieces and salt them lightly. Arrange mushroom pieces on a small grill pan, rack, or a piece of heavy-duty aluminium foil.

Place in the barbecue and cook for 15 to 20 minutes, until they ooze liquid and are cooked through.

While the mushrooms are cooking, mix the dressing ingredients.

Add the cooked mushrooms and mix lightly. Can be served warm or chilled.

Place a layer of spinach on a serving platter. Spoon the dressing over the spinach. Garnish with feta cheese and sunflower seeds, if desired. Alternatively, serve the cheese and seeds separately and let folks add them if they'd like.

Potluck options

2011-07-29T09:48:00.000-07:00

Hard to believe that July is almost over. How's summer where you live? We're still looking forward to its arrival here in western Oregon ...

One challenge we frequently face is deciding what dish to take to a potluck (also known as a potluck supper, spread, Jacob's join, Jacob's supper, faith supper, coverd dish supper, bring and share, shared lunch, pitch-in, carry-in, bring-a-plate, smorgasbord, and dish-to-pass 1). We want to take something that we'll eat. That way, we know that there will be at least one item that fits our diet.This picture from the Wikipedia Potluck page is fairly typical, unless you're fortunate enough to be going to Grok potlucks.

Carbfest, also known as a potluck (image from this site)

Carving station, complete with carbs! (source)

What kinds of dishes fit the paleo / primal / low carb philosophy, short of bringing a full carving station? Cost is an issue. Protein and fat are more expensive than carbohydrate. Breaking out the grass-fed ribeyes probably isn't practical. Prep time can be an issue, too. And sometimes it's best to avoid the whole diet / health / nutrition conversation. Mark Sisson's 80/20 Principle definately applies here. Some of these may not be your choices for everday fare, but they're far better than what we typically see at the potlucks we attend. So here's a list of the options we've come up with so far:

Pre-made party tray - I recently found these at our regional supermarket, composed of two kinds of lunch meat along with two kinds of cheese, already cut. Also included were a container of mixed olives and some packages of crackers. The price was reasonable.

Mixed nuts - Another buy-bring-open option. Pretty much self-explanitory.

Veggie tray - If you're certain that others will be providing animal protein and fat, you could opt for a plateful of plant parts. Obviously you could make this yourself or buy it pre-made.

Deviled eggs - These take a little time to prepare, but their cost can be quite reasonable. You don't have to use your locally-sourced pastured eggs.

Pre-made meatballs and spaghetti sauce - This is a little more involved than the previous options, but not much. We buy a bag of frozen Italian meatballs at our supermarket, put them in the Grokpot and add a jar of the store's spaghetti sauce. Be sure to allow for enough time to thoroughly heat.

Beef sausage in BBQ sauce - Buy the beef sausage (like Hilshire Farms) when it's on sale, at this option becomes an even better deal. Slice the sausage into 1 - 1 1/2 inch pieces, put them in the Grokpot, and add a bottle of prepared BBQ sauce (Be careful with these sauces. They're typically loaded with various sweetners. But it's not like you're drinking the stuff. If you'd like, you could use your own. You can find my recipe here.)

Spinach salad with BBQ'd portobello mushrooms - I'll have to post the recipe for this, but we got it from Smoke and Spice: The Real Way to Barbecue by Cheryl and Bill Jamison. [Update - the recipe is posted here.]

Nancy's all meat chili - Another recipe that I'll post soon.

Pulled pork - For extra-special occasions I've brought a Grokpot of my real pulled pork. I posted my recipes for the spice rub and BBQ sauce here.

I'd love to hear your suggestions.

References:
1 Wikipedia. Potluck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potluck

Sustainability Reality Check

2011-07-20T21:29:00.000-07:00

The nutrition and public health quagmire in the United States has, like a virulent contagion, infected many other topics. “Sustainability” is one of them. Sustainability is a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition" (Ratner 2004). Let’s look at the following paragraph from the “Food” section of the Wikipedia page for sustainability (Wikipedia, 2011):

The American Public Health Association (APHA) defines a "sustainable food system"[86][87] as "one that provides healthy food to meet current food needs while maintaining healthy ecosystems that can also provide food for generations to come with minimal negative impact to the environment. A sustainable food system also encourages local production and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food available, accessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers, consumers, and communities."[88]

Lots to feel good about in that statement, but not a lot to sink your teeth into. On the face of it, it’s hard to argue with. But we have to dig deeper. Just what do they mean by “healthy food,” “healthy ecosystems,” “negative impact,” “nutritious food,” “accessible and affordable,” “humane,” and “just”? Who gets to decide? Perhaps the next section of that paragraph will provide some insight …

Concerns about the environmental impacts of agribusiness and the stark contrast between the obesity problems of the Western world and the poverty and food insecurity of the developing world have generated a strong movement towards healthy, sustainable eating as a major component of overall ethical consumerism.[89]

Here we have the flawed belief that overeating and sedentary behavior cause obesity. Once again, the “experts” have conveniently overlooked the fact that obesity is NOT caused by affluence and that obesity and under-nutrition have frequently been observed in the same unbelievably poor populations (Taubes, 2010). Continuing with the paragraph …

The environmental effects of different dietary patterns depend on many factors, including the proportion of animal and plant foods consumed and the method of food production.[90][91][92][93] The World Health Organization has published a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health report which was endorsed by the May 2004 World Health Assembly. It recommends the Mediterranean diet which is associated with health and longevity and is low in meat, rich in fruits and vegetables, low in added sugar and limited salt, and low in saturated fatty acids; the traditional source of fat in the Mediterranean is olive oil, rich in monounsaturated fat. The healthy rice-based Japanese diet is also high in carbohydrates and low in fat. Both diets are low in meat and saturated fats and high in legumes and other vegetables; they are associated with a low incidence of ailments and low environmental impact.[94]

The WHO got it wrong with Livestock’s Long Shadow. (see my earlier post). The circular reasoning of far too many is that since the consumption of animal products is bad for our health, the production of animal products must be bad for the environment. Many others reason that since the production of animal products is inherently bad for the environment, the consumption of animal products must be bad for the environment. Of course these are myths, based upon the great lies of American conventional wisdom on nutrition and health (Diets low in meat promote health and longevity; Physical activity is key to health; Low fat (high carbohydrate) diets are “healthy”) and vegetarian-influenced environmentalism (The production of vegetables, fruits, cereals and pulses (or legumes) is more environmentally friendly than the production of animal products).

Grass fed, NOT lean!

The clear testimony of the archeological record and anthropological research confirms that the human diet has been and should be based upon animal products. The mistaken belief that the healthy diet is a plant-based one, in other words one based upon carbohydrates, has produced an epidemic of chronic disease in the United States. Any conversation about “sustainability” that does not take this into account is pointless and fatally flawed .

The fiscal crisis currently facing the United States is, to a significant degree, driven by the dramatic increase in health care spending. US health care expenditures surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008, more than three times that spent in 1990, and over eight times that spent in 1980 (CDC, 2010). The share of the U.S. economy that Americans spend on health care has increased from 7.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1970 to 17.6% of GDP in 2009 (CDC, 2010). Chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity, cancer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Alzheimer’s disease – in other words, metabolic diseases – are taking a heavy toll on health while taking an increasing portion of the health care spending. Chronic diseases account for $3 of every $4 spent on healthcare. That’s nearly $7,900 for every American with a chronic disease (CDC, 2010).

Seventy percent of deaths in the US are due to chronic diseases (CDC, 2010). Chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease are the leading causes of disability and death in the US. About 25% of people with chronic diseases have some type of activity limitation, including restrictions in employment and education (Partnership for Solutions, 2004).

Conventional wisdom states that obesity increases the risk of developing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. An opinion informed by recent research understands that obesity is a metabolic disorder and is associated with other metabolic disorders, such as diabetes and heart disease. Obesity is not a cause of metabolic syndrome, it is one of metabolic syndrome’s conditions. This fundamental misunderstanding contributes to obesity epidemic we’re now experiencing .

The rate of obesity in adults has doubled in the last 20 years. It has almost tripled in kids ages 2-11. It has more than tripled in children ages 12-19 (CDC, 2011). Without big changes, 1 in 3 babies born today will develop diabetes in their lifetime (ADA, 2011). Average healthcare costs for someone who has one or more chronic conditions is 5 times greater than for someone without any chronic conditions (Partnership for Solutions, 2004).

Let’s look at the yearly costs due to a handful of conditions associated with metabolic syndrome:

Heart Disease and Stroke $ 432 Billion (Mensah and Brown, 2007)

Diabetes $ 174 Billion (ADA, 2011)

Obesity $ 147 Billion (Finkelstein, et al., 2009)

GERD (2005) $ 2 Billion / week, $ 104 Billion in lost productivity (IFFGD, 2008)

All cancers, except lung and lymphoma $ 100 Billion

Alzheimer’s $ 148 Billion (AA, 2007)

More than 1 trillion US dollars are represented by this partial list of conditions now thought to be associated with metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is most effectively treated by adopting a low carbohydrate, high fat way of eating. It’s likely caused by eating diets high in carbohydrate (Taubes, 2008). Until that is officially accepted by the massive disease treatment industries and agencies, health care costs will continue to be unsustainable and will threaten the long-term sovereignty of this country. To say nothing of the pain and suffering of millions of people.

Given all this, “sustainable” food production looks a little different. Clearly “sustainable” production of grains, pulses (legumes), starchy vegetables and sugary fruit begs the question “Who cares if we can produce these sustainably if we can’t sustain the health impacts of consuming them?” And the issue of “sustainable” production of animal products begs the question “Can we produce enough of them?”

Grass grows were other crops can't.
Cattle grazing the slopes of the Columbia Gorge.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service provides census statistics for the individual states. For 2007, they reported there were 44.3 million acres of pastureland, pastured woodland, and pastured cropland in the 26 states east of the Mississippi (including Wisconsin) (USDA ERS, 2011). How many people could be fed from animal products produced on those acres? To answer that question, you need to make some assumptions. One can argue these one way or the other, but they should serve well enough for this exercise.

Consumed forage dry matter (DM) yield pounds per acre (lb/A) = 12,500 (Hofstrand and Edwards 2009)

Conversion rate = 14 lb DM/lb carcass weight (Lincoln University)

Edible yield = 0.76 lb/lb carcass weight (Jackson Frozen Food Locker)

Cooked yield = 0.65 lb/lb edible yield (Canadian Beef)

Cooked meat per meal = 4 ounces (oz) (Eades and Eades, 2000)

Meals per day = 3

Given the above, 1.6 people could be supported per acre. So if all of the various forms of pasture land east of the Mississippi were managed to this degree, we could feed 71.5 million people. The current population of the US is 307 million (US Census Bureau, 2011). What about the remaining 235.5 million people? How about if we added all of the various pasture land in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Missouri? That would be enough to feed 108 million people. Okay, how about if we took all of the cropland in these states and converted it to pasture, bringing the totals to 247 million acres of pasture land would theoretically allow us to feed 398.2 million people.

That still leaves a great deal of the United States, but much of it will be less productive and it will be needed to produce the young growing animals needed by this vast pastoral enterprise. It should be pointed out that these assumptions are rather generous ones. They represent high forage DM yields and high levels of grazing management. In The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Keith cites Joel Salatin’s production from 10 acres of his Polyface Farm in Virginia:

3,000 eggs

1,000 broilers

80 stewing hens

2,000 pounds of beef

2,500 pounds of pork

100 turkeys

50 rabbits

Keith calculates that this is enough to fully feed 9 people for a year. Compare this figure of 0.9 person persons fed per acre and the preceding exercise’s value of 1.6 persons fed per acre. It should be pointed out that, while Salatin’s pigs and poultry are on pasture, he feeds grain to the pigs, chickens and turkeys. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve written before about how the differences between grain- and grass- finished animal products have been over-sold. But if we’re going to feed grain to livestock, it has to be grown somewhere. In my exercise, I assigned all of cropland east of the 95^th meridian, and a bit west of it, to pasture.

Western Oregon pasture and hay ground.
Tremendous potential remains

There are 473 million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US . In addition, the Bureau of Land Management manages livestock grazing on 157 million acres of public lands (BLM,2011). Add to that the 361 million acres of cropland that could be converted into highly productive pasture, and one begins to see just how vast this country’s pasture resource is.

Anthony Bourdain poses a telling question in his book Medium Raw.

“If, somehow, we manage to bring monstrously evil agribusinesses like Monsanto to their knees, free up vast tracts of arable land for small, seasonal, sustainable farming, where’s all the new help coming from? Seems to me, we’re facing one of two scenarios. Either enormous numbers of people who’ve never farmed before are suddenly convinced that waking up a five a.m. and feeding chickens and then working the soil all day is a desirable thing. Or, in the far more likely case, we’ll revert to the traditional method: importing huge numbers of desperately poor brown people from elsewhere – to grow those tasty, crunch vegetables for more comfortable white masters. So, while animals of the future might be cruelty-free, which would allow those who can afford to eat them to do so with a clean conscience, what about life for thos who will have to shovel the shit from their stalls?”

It takes a while to become a good grazier. One really good pasture-based dairyman told me that a New Zealander told him it would take 20 years, and his experience has confirmed that estimate. Where are these folks going to come from? How will they get access to the land? How will they acquire the animals? It’s one thing to talk about it, it’s another to do it. It’s a blessing to be able to afford the extra cost of local, organic and/or sustainable food products, but what if that is not an option? And that, of course begs the question, “Is it worth it?”

And what about the 6.3 billion people in the rest of the world (CIA, 2011)? If the world’s population is going to feed itself appropriately, people will have to learn how to produce animal products that are appropriate to the regions where they live. Research and demonstration will be needed. This will require a great deal of new thinking, purged of the contamination of American dietary and environmental conventional wisdom.

References:

Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures 2007. Alzheimer’s Association Web site. Accessed July 19, 2011.

American Diabetes Association. 2011. Diabetes Statistics. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Beef Information Centre. Virtual Beef Nutrition Counter. Canadian Beef. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Bourdain, A. 2010. Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook. Harper Collins. New York, NY

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Chronic Disease Overview: Costs of Chronic Disease. Accessed July 15, 2011.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Overweight and Obesity. Accessed July 15, 2011.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. 2010. National Health Care Expenditures Data.

Central Intelligence Agency. 2011. The World Factbook. Washington, DC. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Eases, M.R. and M.D. Eades. 2000. The Protein Power Lifeplan. Warner Books, Inc. New York, NY.

Finkelstein, E. A., J. G. Trogdon, J. W. Cohen and W. Dietz. 2009. “Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer- and service-specific estimates.” Health Affairs 2009; 28(5): w822-w831.

Hofstrand, D. and W. Edwards. July 2009. Computing a Pasture Rental Rate. Iowa State University Extension. Accessed July 19, 2011.

International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders .2008. GERD Costs America Nearly $2 Billion Each Week in Lost Productivity. Accessed July 17, 2011.

Jackson Frozen Food Locker. Ask the Meatman. Accessed July 19, 2011.

Keith, Lierre. 2009. The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. Crescent City, CA: Flashpoint Press.

Lincoln University. Farm Technical Manual. Lincoln University Press. Christchurch, NZ.

Mensah G, Brown D. An overview of cardiovascular disease burden in the United States. Health Aff 2007; 26:38-48.

Partnership for Solutions. 2004. Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care, September 2004. Accessed July 17, 2011.

Ratner, B.D. 2004. "Sustainability as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development." Sociological Inquiry 74(1): 50–69

Taubes, G. 2008. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. Anchor Books, New York, NY

Taubes, G. 2011. Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It. 2011. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

United States Census Bureau. 2011. Population of the United States. Accesses July 19, 2011.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2011. State Fact Sheets. Accessed July 18, 2011.

Wikipedia. Sustainability. Accessed July 19, 2011.

References from Wikipedia quotes:

86. Feenstra, G. (2002). "Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons from the Field". Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2): 99–106. doi:10.1023/A:1016095421310.

87. Harmon A.H., Gerald B.L. (June, 2007). "Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Implement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Support Ecological Sustainabiility" (PDF). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107 (6): 1033–43.. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.138. PMID 17571455. http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/Conservenp.pdf. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

88. "Toward a Healthy, Sustainable Food System (Policy Number: 200712)". American Public Health Association. 2007-06-11. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1361. Retrieved : 2008-08-18.

89. Mason & Singer (2006).

90. McMichael A.J., Powles J.W., Butler C.D., Uauy R. (September 2007). "Food, Livestock Production, Energy, Climate change, and Health." (PDF). Lancet 370 (9594): 1253. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2. PMID 17868818. http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/EH5.pdf. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

91. Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M. (February 2007). "Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems." (PDF). Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 61 (2 ): 279–86. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602522. PMID 17035955. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~choucc/environmental_impact_of_various_dietary_patterns.pdf. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

92. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M., de Haan, C. (2006). "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options" 390 pp. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

93. Heitschmidt R.K., Vermeire L.T., Grings E.E. (2004). "Is Rangeland Agriculture Sustainable?". Journal of Animal Science. 82 (E-Suppl): E138–146. PMID 15471792. Retrieved on: 2009-03-18.

94. World Health Organisation (2004). "Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health." Copy of the strategy endorsed by the World Health Assembly. Retrieved on: 2009-6-19.

What's for Lunch?

2011-07-07T12:38:00.000-07:00

The cafeteria at my workplace offers some selections that fit my diet, but they’re pricey. There are a number of fast food and chain restaurants nearby that could do in a pinch, but their cost and the time required make those options unacceptable, too. Packing a lunch is my best option, but I've had to learn a few tricks to make that a part of my routine. Taking leftovers is the simplest choice, but we don’t always have them. My solution is to grill a large batch of meat or poultry and freeze it in meal-size portions.

We buy London Broil in the large, extra savings package when it’s on sale. I season them with a 50:50 mix of coarse ground black pepper and Kosher salt.

I brown them over direct heat for approximately 2 ½ minutes per side, turning them three times for a total of about 5 minutes per side.

Once browned, I move them to the side and allow them to cook via indirect heat until the internal temperature reaches ~137F. While they’re cooking, I can cook some other meat – country style ribs, for example.

When done, I place them on a cooling tray for approximately 30 minutes. (I find it amusing that we use our old jellyroll pans for meat preparation and cooling ...)

After the meat’s rested for half an hour, I move it to the refrigerator and leave it there until the next day. Once it’s fully chilled, I dice it into ½ inch pieces.

I portion this cubed meat into snack-sized zip lock bags. I’ve calculated my per-meal protein requirement, based on Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades’ Protein Power Lifeplan, to be the equivalent of 4.25 ounces of cooked meat. Your portion size may vary.

I then place the individual portions into a labeled gallon size zip lock bag and place it into the freezer.

My typical lunch consists of a salad with one of these meat portions. They usually thaw by lunch time (I pack my lunch in an insulated bag with a re-freezable ice pack). If it hasn’t, 10 seconds in the microwave does the trick.

In addition to lunches, these handy portions make breakfast easier. While I defrost a portion of cooked beef in the microwave, I sauté some onions in lard or clarified butter. Once the onions are nicely browned, I add the beef. One the beef is heated, I add 4 eggs and scramble the whole mixture. This makes 2 breakfast portions.

Agriculture - Curse or Cure?

2011-07-01T14:25:00.000-07:00

Jared Diamond has described agriculture as "the worst mistake in the history of the human race." (Diamond, 1987) "Recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence."

Inequality and despotism have been, and still are, undeniably present in this world. But we should always remember that association does not prove causation. Might there be other forces leading to these conditions? Could there be forms of "agriculture" that would not produce them?

The term agriculture includes the production of animal products from managed grasslands, not just the production of "cash crops." As I discussed in a previous post, human manipulation of the environment to favor food production (in other words, agriculture) was a long-standing practice in pre-Columbian America.

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans.” (Lott, 2002)

Converting cellulose into fat and protein

Today we face an epidemic of chronic diseases in the United States, and throughout the world. Kelly Brownell would have us believe that obesity and other metabolic diseses are the result of a “toxic food environment.” (Brownell, 2002) Too much cheap food (including fast food) causes us to eat too much. It’s easy to entertain such flawed theories when people are well-fed on less than 10% of their disposable income (USDA ERS, 2002). But as Gary Taubes has documented in Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat, there are numerous examples of obesity and malnutrition existing in the same impoverished populations at the same time. Their condition was NOT the result of too much food, or a life that didn’t include sufficient exercise.

The conversation about diet, health and human nutrition has been dominated by those who believe that obesity is the result of over-eating and sedentary behavior, that eating animal products causes various chronic diseases, and that animal agriculture is bad for the environment. Various “experts” who hold these world views have allowed their innately human “belief engine” to form incorrect conclusions from the associations they’ve perceived in dubious observational studies (Park, 2002). These fallacies have so thoroughly contaminated the “conventional wisdom” that they’ve influenced the “new conventional wisdom” held by members of the paleo / primal / low carb communities. Our message ought to be that replacing carbohydrates with fat from animal products, regardless of how they’re produced, will improve the health of most people. Instead it can be heard to mean that unless you buy more expensive organic or grass-fed vegetables and animal products, you shouldn’t bother. Our message becomes one for the relatively well-off, instead of a message for everyone.

Spring grazing in western Oregon

The evidence strongly suggests that the epidemic of obesity and related metabolic diseases should be laid at the feet of the high-carbohydrate-low-fat experts and not at agriculture's. Many desire to “return to a simpler time.” Something in the paleo message may tap into that desire. But how “paleo” can one be when one isn’t actually doing the hunting and/or gathering? How are we going to deal with today's problems, not the least of which is a massive and growing world population? The solution to today’s problem cannot be found in going back, we must go forward. The good old days weren't necessarily all that good. In order to go forward we need to consider the language we’re using.

What do the phrases “eat real food” or “all things in moderation” actually mean? Just how does one convert such feel-good messages into actual practice? “Sustainability” is in danger of becoming such a meaningless term, if it hasn’t already. Too often the bounds on the system are defined to the advantage of the one promoting their own approach. As I researched the material for my post on hormones, nitrites, and antibiotics, I ran across statements to the effect that the use of improved genetics, high concentrate finishing, subtherapeutic antibiotics, and hormone implants in beef cattle resulted in greater meat production from fewer animals and that, since this represented an environmental benefit, it was more “sustainable.” On the other hand there are the piously environmental, those for whom “being green means eating organic veggies and recycling the wine bottles.” (Rosen, 2010) They are green “so long as it doesn’t affect their home heating, TV viewing, or car driving.” (Rosen, 2010)

Thanks to folks like Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, Gary Taubes, Tom Naughton, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Jay Wortman, Jimmy Moore, and organizations like the Metabolism Society I now understand the fallacy of the thinking exemplified by Brownell and others. I’ve come to understand how our misinformed environmental understanding has influenced policy, debate and awareness in our society. And I’m developing a greater awareness of just how greatly the vegetarian ethic has influenced the thinking of the experts and the consumers. The irony is the likelihood that our easy access to so many high quality animal products at such low cost is, in fact, agriculture’s great blessing and offers the likely solution to today’s epidemic of chronic diseases.

“A liberal meat supply has always been associated with a happy and virile people and invariably has been the main food available to settlers of new and undeveloped territories. Statistics show that per capita meat consumption decreases with density of population.” (Romans and Ziegler, 1974)

References:

Brownell, K. D., 2002. The Environment and Obesity. In Eating Disorders and Obesity, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Handbook. C. G. Fairburn and K. D. Brownell. The Guilford Press. New York, NY.

Diamond, J. 1987. The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. In Discover Magazine. Accessed at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race, July 1, 2011

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Park, Robert. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, inc. New York, NY.

Pearson, A.M., and T.A. Gillett. 1996. Processed Meats. Chapman & Hall. New York, NY

Romans, J.R., and P.T. Ziegler. 1974. The Meat We Eat. Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. Danville, IL

Rosen, N. 2010. “Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America.” Penguin Books. New York, NY.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2008. Briefing Rooms: Food CPI and Expenditures: Table 7. Washington, DC. Accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm, June 18, 2011.

Easy 'Q

2011-06-27T15:06:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying that I know the difference between barbecuing and grilling, and I don't consider propane a fit fuel for either. I have a Weber grill and a New Braunfels barbecue (I've had it so long, that I didn't know they've gone out of business! Apparently it's now made by Char-Broil). My personal record for a single batch is 40+ pounds of pork shoulder, cooked for 16 hours, shredded by hand, and dressed with my own sauce. Wonderful stuff, if I do say so myself.

That introduction is an attempt to hold at bay any purists who will rightly object to calling this barbecue. I will merely suggest that this recipe is an option for folks who don't have a proper barbecue pit or the time it takes to tend one. The product won't technically be barbecue, but it will be good!

Start with some country style ribs. This is a cut of pork that comes from the upper rib end of the shoulder. Dust them with your favorite dry rub, or try mine (see the recipe, below).

Country style ribs, dusted with dry rub

Place them over medium coals, turning them so the surfaces get some color. The aim is not to cook them, just for flavoring.

Flavoring the pork.

Once all four sides are colored, transfer them to your "Grok Pot."

Ready for sauce

Add your favorite barbecue sauce, or try my recipe, below.

Sauced and ready for some long slow cookin'

Put the cover on the crock pot and cook on low for 12 hours, or more.

Done! Ready for shredding and some more sauce

Once they're done, remove them from the pot, pour the sauce into Pyrex or other heat-safe container. You can remove the fat that floats to the top with a spoon or place the container in the refrigerator and remove the fat after it solidifies.

Enjoy!

Dry Rub

2 Tbsp Paprika

2 tsp seasoned salt

2 tsp ground black pepper

2 tsp granulated garlic

1/2 tsp cayenne pepper

1 tsp dried oregano

1 tsp dry mustard

1/4 tsp chili powder

Mix thoroughly. I use an old spice bottle as a shaker bottle for applying the dry rub.

Barbecue Sauce

This is the recipe for Memphis Magic sauce from Cheryl and Bill Jamison's Smoke and Spice: Cooking with Smoke, the Real Way to Barbecue. This is my favorite book on barbecue. If you're only going to own one book on the subject, I think this should be it.

3 Tbsp butter, preferably unsalted

1/4 cup minced onion

1 cup white vinegar

1 cup tomato sauce

1/4 cup Worcestershire sauce

2 tsp sugar

1 tsp salt

1/2 tsp ground black pepper

1/8 tsp cayenne pepper

Dash of Tabasco or other hot pepper sauce

Melt the butter in a saucepan over medium heat. Add the onions and sauté until they begin to turn golden. Stir in the remaining ingredients, reduce heat to low, and cook for approximately 20 minutes. If you want the sauce thicker, cook longer. Keeps well in the refrigerator. Freezes well, too.

Is Bacon Paleo?

2011-06-19T04:45:00.000-07:00

My post on hormones, nitrites, and antibiotics left me pondering bacon. Okay, so it doesn’t take all that much to get me thinking about bacon. I don’t think I’m all that unique in that respect, at least among members of the primal / paleo / low carb community. As a matter of fact, I remember reading (I can’t remember where) that bacon is a common cause of vegan/vegetarian “slips.” That ought to make us cherish bacon even more! So imagine my joy when I discovered Voges Haut Chocolat’s confection last month in Seattle. It’s too late for Father’s Day, but any day would be a good excuse for this treat, right?

Bacon is a cured cut of pork, but the cuts differ between regions. In the United States bacon (called “streaky,” “fatty,” or “American style” outside North America) is produced from the pork belly. Canadian bacon is produced from the pork loin. In much of Europe, and Great Britain in particular, bacon generally refers to Wilshire bacon. This bacon is produced from a Wilshire side, which is basically the loin and belly. Unlike Canadian and US bacon which are almost always smoked, Wiltshire bacon may or may not be. (Pearson and Gillett, 1996)

A Wilshire Side, with the ribs and backbone still in place.

Anyway, I started wondering about the need for, and history of, meat preservation. Particularly about smoking and curing. How long have humans been practicing these arts? Is bacon truly primal / paleo?

All of this reminded me of the fact that a ready supply of fresh meat has not been the daily reality for most of mankind’s existence. And it still isn’t for a substantial portion of mankind. Modern refrigeration and freezing has eliminated the need for the heavy salting and smoking that were once needed for preservation. Prior to modern refrigeration and freezing, animals would be slaughtered in the cooler fall, at the end of the growing season. One reason for today’s conventional animal production practices is to provide a year-round supply of slaughter animals and fresh meat and milk.

The origin of meat preservation, and therefore processing, is lost in antiquity. Perhaps it started when our distant ancestors learned that cooking prolongs the keeping quality of fresh meat. Perhaps that was followed by the discovery of the preservative action and desirable flavor imparted to meat that was hung near their fires. The discovery that salt acted as a preservative came later, but there are records of salt being used to preserve fish dating back as far as 3500 BCE (Pearson and Gillett, 1996). The ancient Egyptians recorded the preservation of meat products by salting and sun drying. It is interesting to note that the salt used frequently contained sufficient nitrate to produce the color-preserving, flavoring, and preservative effects that saltpeter and vegetable extracts are used to produce in today’s meat curing processes (Pearson and Gillett, 1996). So the smoking and curing of meat have been practiced since at least the beginning of recorded history. They are probably not ‘paleo’ in the strictest sense, but they are ancient.

Natural refrigeration and drying are two equally ancient preservation methods for meat. The early Romans are credited with being the first to use ice and snow as a means of preserving food, although that is surely due to the fact that their accounts have survived while those of the various peoples of northern Europe, Asia and North America, if they were written, did not (Romans and Ziegler, 1974). While the native people of North America dried meat to preserve it for later use and for making pemmican, drying meat seems a widespread practice (Pearson and Gillett, 1996).

References:

Pearson, A.M., and T.A. Gillett. 1996. Processed Meats. Chapman & Hall. New York, NY

Romans, J.R., and P.T. Ziegler. 1974. The Meat We Eat. Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. Danville, IL

I can't post comments, so I assume others have the same problem ... ?

2011-06-11T09:28:00.000-07:00

It seems that Google, errr Blogger, is have some kind of issue that prevents me from leaving comments on this blog and others, too. It's been a "known issue" for some time, and they incorrectly report it "fixed." Apparently it's preventing me from even reporting it!!

*Ah, technology!*

******

Okay ... I *wish* I'd thought to do that sooner. Switching to Google Chrome "fixed" the problem. Nice marketing strategy, Google!

I've edited this post to remove the "e-mail me your comments" content, but I'll leave the rest up in case others are experiencing the same problem.

******

Regards,

Pete B

Hormones and Nitrites and Antibiotics, Oh My!!

2011-06-04T22:26:00.000-07:00

When the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, it demonstrated how true scientists ought to behave. Unfortunately, such behavior has been rare in the realm of human nutrition. This report was the results of an exhaustive three-year review of the possible health effects of exposure to residential electromagnetic fields (EMF). “Our committee evaluated over five hundred studies,” the committee chair Charles Stevens said, “and in the end all we can say is that the evidence doesn’t point to these fields as being a health risk.” What’s remarkable is that the review panel had been “generally viewed as packed with scientists who might have reason to prefer that the controversy not be quite resolved” (Park, 2000).

The vice chair of the panel was an epidemiologist who had staked his reputation on a link between EMF and cancer. Perhaps half of the sixteen panel members were involved in research related to the health effects of EMF. A report refuting the purported health effects of EMF would likely lead to the elimination of funding for their research. They might be inclined to decide it was better to err of the side of caution and simply call for more research, as some previous groups had done.

Despite this potential conflict of interest, the panel unanimously concluded that “the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard.” And if this had just been a matter of science, that should have settled it. But there were others involved in the issue who had their own interests. For years reporters had been writing stories about EMF-hazards from power-lines and residential wiring. Newsletters were devoted entirely to the EMF-health issue. For them, the controversy was their livelihood. For these folks to now write that it had all been a false alarm would have been miraculous. And, as history shows, that did not happen.

Whatever the scientific failings of various researchers in the diet-nutrition-human health scandal of the last half century, there is an equally culpable group of individuals who’ve made their livelihood from perpetuating various myths about what a “healthy” diet ought to be. Largely this has been a call to reduce our consumption of animal products, and to reinforce their arguments they perpetuate myths about our food supply. Let’s consider the subjects of antibiotics, nitrites, and antibiotics in meat produced by “conventional” practices in the United States.

Image from zmescience.com

Hormone-Free?

Many have cited the presence of hormones in animal products as a reason for buying organic products or avoiding them altogether. First of all, there is no such thing as hormone-free food. All multi-cellular organisms contain hormones, whether they are cattle, cabbages, chickens — or people. Livestock and poultry can be grown without added hormones, but they cannot be hormone-free. Federal law prohibits the use of hormones in poultry and swine production, so the next time you see “No added hormones” on a package of chicken or pork, realized that you’re looking at another example of a “guaranteed not to turn pink in the can” claim. It’s factually true, but misleading. It implies that some pork or chicken is produced with added hormones.

Hormones like estrogen are used in modern beef production to increase the amount of lean beef that can be harvested from cattle. These hormones are the same as, or synthetic versions of, those naturally produced by cattle. But the amount of estrogen in beef, from either implanted or non-implanted steers, is a fraction of what is found in soybean oil, wheat germ, eggs, and what is produced by the human body (Rains, 2009).

Table 1. Estrogenic activity of common foods (ng/500g)

(Hoff man and Eversol, 1986, Hartman et al, 1998, Shore and Shemesh, 2003, USDA-ARS, 2002) Units are nanograms (ng) of estrone plus estradiol for animal products and isoflavones for plant products per 500 grams of food

Note: Beef from non-implanted heifers and cows, either open or pregnant, would have higher estrogen content.

Table 2. Estrogenic production in humans, and potential estrogen intake from implanted beef

(Hoffman and Eversol, 1986)

Okay, so both plant and animal products contain hormones, but plant hormones don’t affect mammals, right? Wrong! The fact that phytoestrogens (estrogenic substances from plants) can produce effects in mammals has long been known. Bennetts et al. (1946) described severe clinical abnormalities in sheep grazed on highly estrogenic subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) pastures. This syndrome, called “clover disease,” included very low lambing rates, prolapsed of the uterus and dystocia in ewes and enlargement of the bulbo-urethral glands and death in the wethers. (It should be noted that this herbage was extraordinarily high in phytoestrogen, as much as 5 percent of dry matter.)

While there is a wide-spread belief that residues of growth-promoting hormones in milk or meat might cause early puberty or increased height in children, the data strongly suggests that this cannot be the case. Tom Naughton says that math is one way we can tell if we’re being lied to. So let’s do some math!

We can calculate how much beef from hormone-implanted cattle a pre-puberal boy or girl would need to consume to have sex hormone levels equal to those of adult men or women.

(1) Given that pre-puberal and adult males produce 65,000 and 6,400,000 ng of testosterone per day, respectively, and that steak from a steer given testosterone contains 0.9 ng of testosterone per 3 ounces of meat, a boy would need to consume 1.3 million pounds of implanted beef per day to consume sufficient testosterone to achieve an adult’s level (Smith, 2011).

(2) Given that pre-puberal and adult females produce 41,000 and 513,000 ng of estrogen per day, respectively, and that steak from a steer given estrogen contains 1.9 ng estrogen per 3 ounces of meat, a girl would need to consume more than 46,000 pounds of implanted beef per day to consume sufficient estrogen to achieve an adult’s level (Smith, 2011).

And it should be noted that oral estrogens generally have poor bio-availability (0.1-12%) due to extensive metabolism after absorption from the gut (Oral testosterone and progesterone are also reported to have low bioavailability) (Doyle, 2000). Since both of the proceeding calculations assume 100% absorption of the hormone from the digestive system, the amount either child would need to eat would be almost 10 times greater!

While Europe has banned the importation of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and other countries, this is a political/economic issue NOT a scientific one. The World Organization for Animal Health and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the FAO/WHO Food Standards Commission) have affirmed that hormone use in cattle production is safe for consumers (McEwen and McNab, 1997, FAO/WHO 1999, 2009). Unfortunately, European political bodies have rejected the science and refused to lift the ban, in large part to protect their producers from U.S. competition. That’s fair as a political issue, but not if it’s clothed in unfounded health concerns.

"Uncured"?

Another theme in the “animal products are bad for you” narrative is that nitrite in cured meat is linked to diseases like cancer. Rather than spend time explaining the true meaning of the word “linked” in this connection, I highly recommend that you view Tom Naughton’s video Science for Smart People. In response to this reputed health-risk, many consumers avoid cured meat products. Numerous products are now available which are labeled “uncured.” What does this product claim mean? Are nitrites actually harmful?

Image from unbreaded.com

Nitrite plays a very important role in cured meats by preventing the growth of Clostridium botulinum, which can cause the deadly disease botulism, and preventing spoilage. In addition, it gives cured meats their characteristic color and flavor. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) allows no more than 156 parts per million (ppm) nitrite in curing meat products, with 120 ppm the commonly used amount. But that’s the amount used in the process. The amount in the final products is typically 10 ppm (AMI, 2008, Sebranek and Bacus, 2007).

Less than five percent of our daily nitrite intake comes from cured meats like ham, bacon and hot dogs. Ninety-three percent comes from leafy vegetables and tubers. Vegetables contain nitrate which is reduced to nitrite when it comes into contact with saliva in our mouths. Table 3 lists the amount of nitrate found in some vegetables (AMI, 2008):

Table 3. Nitrate content of selected vegetables

Some uncured products are available today that use ingredients like beet or celery juice or natural sea salt instead of sodium nitrate. These “natural” products all contain nitrate. When this nitrate is exposed to certain types of bacteria in the product, it is converted to nitrite, producing a product with similar color and taste to traditionally cured meat products. The amount of nitrite consumed from uncured meat products versus traditionally cured meat products is virtually the same( AMI, 2008, Sebranek and Bacus, 2007).

While some people question whether nitrite from vegetable sources or saliva is different from the nitrite that is added to cured meats, experts like Jeff Sindelar, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, say emphatically: “Where you receive it (nitrite) actually makes no difference because nitrite is nitrite. In other words, the nitrite derived from celery or other vegetables is exactly same as the nitrite found in cured meats.” (AMI, 2011)

Okay, so there’s nitrate in lots of our food-stuffs and our bodies convert it to nitrite, but is nitrite harmful? The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is considered the “gold standard” in determining whether substances cause cancer. Its multi-year study in which rats and mice were fed high levels of sodium nitrite found that nitrite was not associated with cancer. NTP maintains a list of chemicals found to be carcinogenic. Sodium nitrite is not on that list (USHHS, 2005).

Not only does nitrite not cause cancer, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston have discovered that nitrite actually has health benefits (Gladwin, MT, et al., 2005). When nitrite’s safety was questioned in the 1970s, scientists had not yet discovered that the human body makes nitrite as part of its normal, healthy nitrogen cycle. Study after study has shown that nitrite can: Regulate blood pressure (Webb, 2008, Larsen, et al., 2006); Prevent injury from heart attack (Bryan, et al., 2007); Prevent brain damage following a stroke (Jung, et al., 2006); Prevent preeclampsia in pregnant women (Rosselli, 1997); Promote wound healing (Garcia-Saura, et al., 2010); Promote successful organ transplantation (Duranski, et al., 2005); Treat sickle cell anemia (Mack, et al., 2008); Prevent gastric ulcers (Lundberg, et al., 2008).

“The idea it’s bad for you has not played out,” according to Marc Gladwin (AMI, 2011). This is code for “the hypothesis was wrong.” Indeed, Gladwin’s group found that infusing nitrite into patients with a variety of health conditions was an inexpensive and extremely effective treatment.

Anti-antibiotics

Another issue purportedly supporting the “animal products are bad for you and the environment” narrative is the belief that antibiotic use in livestock production is increasing and that this is a threat to human health. One purported threat comes from the consumption of foodstuffs that contain antibiotic residues. Another is that the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture leads to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

First some background. Two terms frequently used to describe antibiotic use in livestock and poultry production are “therapeutic” and “sub-therapeutic.” When an animal exhibits clinical signs of an illness, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic drug to treat that condition - just as a doctor would with a human. This approach is called a “therapeutic” use of prescriptions, and this represents the majority of antibiotics used by animal agriculture (AMI, 2010).

“Subtherapeutic” refers to the use of antibiotics in a preventative, or prophylactic, manner. Antibiotics are administered at vulnerable times, such as weaning, when animals are very susceptible to disease that can kill quickly, sometimes in less than 24 hours. It is often easier to control the total herd health through the early prevention of a contagious illness. Remember the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Some antibiotics offer an added benefit of enhancing livestock and poultry growth when administered, but, according to a 2007 survey, only an estimated 13 percent of antibiotics are used in growth promotion and heightened attention to the issue is discouraging such use even more (Graham, 2007, AMI, 2010).

Antibiotic use in livestock and poultry production is strictly regulated by officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Meat and poultry are inspected in plants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that they comply with all federal safety rules. Issues surrounding antibiotic use and resistance are extremely complex and involve both human and veterinary use. While recent news has focused on veterinary antibiotic use, many experts have cautioned against overuse of antibiotics in humans for decades.

In the 1940s, antibiotics became available in general human medicine. Within a decade, medical journals contained cautions about the overuse of antibiotics to treat illnesses for which they were not warranted. Scientists warned that the overuse of antibiotics in humans could potentially create resistant strains of bacteria. Concerns about the overuse of antibiotics in humans continued throughout the following decades. A 1999 study of pediatricians in the journal Pediatrics found that more than half of doctors reported writing 10 or more antibiotic prescriptions in the past month that they believed to be unwarranted and did so in response to parental pressure (Bauchner, et al., 1999). Interviews with patients revealed that patients often exaggerated symptoms and pressured doctors to secure a prescription for antibiotics even when it is not needed. By and large, those interviewees believed that antibiotics were needed to treat everything but the common cold (Pechère, 2001). For more than 40 years, antibiotics regulated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been used to treat sick animals, prevent illness and maintain the health of animals. The use of antibiotics in livestock production has been relatively steady over time, but in responding to concerns about the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, public attention seems to have shifted away from human use toward agriculture (AMI, 2010).

Some argue that the use of antibiotics in food animals could create strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and ultimately infect humans, but years of research have failed to prove that this evolution is occurring or that it is risking human life (AMI, 2010). One often-cited statistic comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which claims that 70 percent of antibiotics produced in the U.S. are fed to livestock. It’s hard to understand how the UCS came up with this statistic since antibiotic use in humans is not tracked. Still, one would reasonably expect that 302 million head of American livestock and 6.27 billion American chickens and turkeys would require more antibiotics than 309 million people who weigh a fraction of a full grown steer and far less than a typical market hog.

Denmark banned non-therapeutic antibiotic use in 2000. “There seems to be little evidence after 10 years that public health has improved since the Danish ban on growth promoting and preventive antibiotics.” (Hurd, 2010) “Salmonella and Campylobacter illness rates have not decreased and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been steadily increasing for the last 10 years. Additionally, the resistance levels in some key human infections has not declined, but increased.” (Hurd, 2010) While many had predicted that a ban on growth promotion and preventative antibiotic uses would reduce total antibiotic consumption in livestock, the Danish government reported that “for production animals consumption [of therapeutic antibiotics] has increased gradually by 110 percent from 1998 through 2008.” (Hurd, 2010) And the therapeutic antibiotics that are now being used are considered more important in human medicine. Overall the data suggest that the antibiotics previously used for growth promotion were preventing a great deal of illness, especially in pigs (Hurd, 2010).

The road from foolishness to fraud

This post opened with the example of the scientific debunking of EMF as a cause of childhood leukemia from Robert Park’s book Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Tom Naugton mentioned this book in his videotaped presentation Science for Smart People.

In closing this post, I’d like to offer an extended quote from the book and issue a plea and a challenge to all my brothers and sisters in the low carb / paleo / primal community:

“Ideology, fraud, and foolishness were all present in the examples of voodoo science discussed in these pages. For those who intentionally set out to commit fraud, such as the makers of “Vitamin O,” we can have little sympathy. But most of the scientists and inventors we met started out like Joe Newman, believing that they had made a great discovery overlooked by everyone else. While it never pays to underestimate the human capacity for self deception, they must at some point begin to realize that things are not behaving as they had supposed.

“Like all those who have gone down this road before them, they will have reached a fork. In one direction lies the admission that they may have been mistaken. The more publicly and forcefully they have pressed their claim, the more difficult it will be to take that road. In the other direction is denial. Experiments may be repeated over and over in an attempt to make it come out “right,” or elaborate explanations will be concocted as to why contrary evidence cannot be trusted. Endless reasons may be found to postpone critical experiments that might settle the issue. The further scientists travel down that road, the less likely it becomes that they will ever turn back. Every appearance on nationwide television, every new investor, every bit of celebrity and wealth that comes their way makes turning back less likely. This is the road to fraud.”

We rightly challenge the lack of scientific rigor in the nutrition /diet / human health realm. We must rigorously examine, however, all of the bits of the narrative we’ve inherited from the deluded and, perhaps, fraudulent “conventional wisdom.”

References:

American Meat Institute (AMI). 2011. Meat MythCrushers: Setting the Record Straight. Champaign, IL. Accessed June 3, 2011.

American Meat Institute. 2010. Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production: Ensuring Meat Safety. Champaign, IL. Accessed June 3, 2011.

American Meat Institute. 2008. Sodium Nitrite: The Facts. AMI Fact Sheet. American Meat Institute. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Bauchner, H, S.I. Pelton, J.O. Klein. 1999. Parents, physicians and antibiotic use, Pediatrics; 103 (2) 395-401. Abstract accessed May 18, 2011.

Bennetts, H.W., E.J. Underood, and F.L. Shier. 1946. A specific breeding problem of sheep on subterranean clover pastures in Western Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal. 22.2-12. Abstract accessed June 2, 2011.

Bryan, N.S., J.W. Calvert, J.W. Elrod, S. Gundewar, S.Y. Ji, and D.J. Lefer. 2007. Dietary nitrite supplementation protects against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 19144–19149. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Doyle, E., 2000. Human Safety of Hormone Implants Used to Promote Growth in Cattle. Food Research Institute. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Duranski, M.R., J. J.M. Greer, A. Dejam, S. Jaganmohan, N. Hogg, W. Langston, R.P. Patel, S. Yet, X. Wang, C.G. Kevil, M.T. Gladwin, and D.J. Lefer. 2005. Cytoprotective effects of nitrite during in vivo ischemia-reperfusion of the heart and liver, Journal of Clinical Investigation 115; 1232-1240. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). 1999. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Fifty-second meeting, Rome. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. 2009. Joint FAO/WHO Foods Standards Programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Thirty-Second Session. FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 29 June - 4 July 2009. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2011. Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals. Center for Veterinary Medicine. Product Safety Information. Accessed May 26, 2011.

Garcia-Saura, M.F., B.O. Fernandez, B.P. McAllister, D.R. Whitlock, W.W. Cruikshank and M. Feelisch. 2010. Dermal Nitrite Application Enhances Global Nitric Oxide Availability: New Therapeutic Potential for Immunomodulation? Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 130, 608-611. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Gladwin, MT, A.N. Schechter, D.B. Kim-Shapiro, R.P. Patel, N. Hogg, S. Shiva, R.O. Cannon, III, M. Kelm, D.A. Wink, M.G. Espey, E.H. Oldfield, R.M. Pluta, B.A. Freeman, J.R. Lancaster, Jr, M..Feelisch and J.O. Lundberg. 2005 The emerging biology of the nitrite anion. Nature Chemical Biology 1, 308 – 314. Abstract accessed May 24, 2011.

Graham, J.P., J.J. Boland, E. Silbergeld. 2007. Growth Promoting Antibiotics in Food Animal Production: An Economic Analysis. Public Health Reports. 122: 79-122. Accessed June 3, 2011.

Hartmann, S., M. Lacorn and H. Steinhart. 1998. Natural occurrence of steroid hormones in food. Food Chemistry 62:7-20.

Hoffman, B. and Eversol. 1986. In Drug Residues in Animals, A. G. Rico (Ed.), pp. 111-146. Academic Press, New York.

Hurd, S. 2010. Danish Experience Offers Lessons for U.S. Antibiotic Use. Beef Issues Quarterly. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Jung, K., K. Chu, S. Ko, S. Lee, D. Sinn, D. Park, J. Kim, E. Song, M. Kim and J. Roh. 2006. Early intravenous infusion of sodium nitrite protects brain against in vivo ischemia-reperfusion injury. Stroke 37: 2744–2750. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Larsen F.J., B. Ekblom, K. Sahlin, J.O. Lundberg, E. Weitzberg. 2006. Effects of dietary nitrate on blood pressure in healthy volunteers. New England Journal of Medicine. 355: 2792–2793. Accessed May 24, 2011.

Lundberg, J.O, E. Weitzberg and M.T. Gladwin. 2008. The nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 7, 156-167. Abstract accessed May 26, 2011.

Mack, A. K., V.R. McGowan II, C.K. Tremonti, D. Ackah, C. Barnett, R.F. Machado, M. T. Gladwin, and G. J. Kato. 2008. Sodium nitrite promotes regional blood flow in patients with sickle cell disease: a phase I/II study. British Journal of Haematology. 142(6):971–978. Accessed May 26, 2011.

McEwen, S.A. and W.B . McNab. 1997. Contaminants of non-biological origin in foods from animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 16 (2), 684-693. Accessed June 2, 2011.

Park, Robert. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, inc. New York, NY.

Pechère, J.C., 2001. Patients’ Interviews and Misuse of Antibiotics, Clinical Infectious Diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases; 33(Suppl 3):S170–3. Accessed May 20, 2011.

Raines, Christopher. 2009. Hormones in my organic food? Yep. meatblogger.org. Accessed July 20, 2010.

Rosselli, M. 1997. Nitric Oxide and Reproduction. Molecular Human Reproduction, 3 (8) 639–641. Accessed May 25, 2011.

Sebranek, J.G, and J.N. Bacus. 2007. Natural and organic cured meat products: regulatory, manufacturing, marketing, quality and safety issues. AMSA White Paper Series, No. 1. American Meat Science Association, Savoy, IL . Accessed June 2, 2011.

Shore, L. S., and M. Shemesh. 2003. Naturally produced steroid hormones and their release into the environment. Pure Appl. Chem. 75:1859-71.

Smith, G. 2011. Hormones – Beef, Milk and Puberty. Where Food comes From Blog. Accessed May 26, 2011.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS). 2002. USDA-Iowa State University Database on the Isoflavone Content of Foods, Release 1.3. Nutrient Data Laboratory Web site: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/isoflav/isoflav.html. Accesed May 26, 2011.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS). 2009. 2008 FSIS National Residue Program Data. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Office of Public Health Science. Washington, DC. Accessed June 2, 2011.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nation Toxicology Program (USHHS NTP). 2005. 11th Report on Carcinogens, Accessed May 23, 2011.

Webb A.J., N. Patel, S. Loukogeorgakis, M. Okorie, Z. Aboud, S. Misra, R. Rashid, P. Miall, J. Deanfield, N. Benjamin, R. MacAllister, A.J. Hobbs, A. Ahluwalia. 2008. Acute Blood Pressure Lowering, Vasoprotective, and Antiplatelet Properties of Dietary Nitrate via Bioconversion to Nitrite. Hypertension 51 (3)784-790. Accessed May 23, 2011.

A Busy Month

2011-05-08T22:05:00.000-07:00

My schedule has been very full lately, and it looks like I’ll miss this posting target by a week. My apologies. This will be an odds-and-ends post about some events that took place, and topics that came up, in April:
* Presentations
* A demonstration of the power of reducing cost of production in a pasture-based dairy
* Grain-feeding is not the cause, nor grass-feeding the cure, for E. coli O157:H7
* A Nutrition and Metabolism Society get together in the Pacific Northwest
* A hammered dulcimer gathering
All in one post!
**********************
On April 9th I spoke to the Douglas County Livestock Association's Spring Livestock Conference. The audience was an engaged one, and I enjoyed some wonderful interaction with several attendees. One of them was Craig Reed, a reporter for the Capital Press. He wrote an article about my presentation, which was posted on the 21st. If I could make a change, it would be in the title, “Expert sees protein as balm for obesity woes.” I’d replace “protein” with “meat” or “fat.” Despite that, I think it’s a pretty good article in a widely distributed agricultural publication. It was also a great exercise in “sharpening-up” the message.
***********************

The Power of Reducing Cost of Production

American agriculture has been thoroughly infected with the “more-and-bigger’s-better” virus that seems endemic to the rest of American culture. The focus of American agriculture has been on increasing production per head or per acre, rather than on the cost of that increase production. There’s an old joke about a rancher lamenting the fact that he was losing one dollar for every calf he sold. His solution was “I’d better sell more calves!” Humor only works when there’s truth in it, today’s high prices for cattle and sheep notwithstanding.

There are three economic levers a farmer or rancher can manipulate to influence the profitability of their farm or ranch: the amount of products they produce, the price they get for their products, and what it costs to produce those products. The cost of production may be the most powerful of these levers.

Swallow house - organic fly control

On April 12th I took part in a field trip as part of the Oregon State University Forage Production Class. We visited Jon and Julianne Bansen’s Double J Jerseys farm in Monmouth, Oregon. They are part of the Organic Valley Cooperative. It was a beautiful day, a one-day break in our otherwise cool, rainy “spring. ” The sparrows (the Bansen’s organic fly control) had finally returned the week before, a couple of weeks later than normal. The cows had only recently begun their grazing season. Jon believes that he’s proven what he was told by some New Zealand dairymen – it takes 20 years to become a good grazier. About twenty years ago, their average milk production per cow was pushing 19,000 pounds of milk. The cows were grazing pasture, but they were also receiving approximately 20 pounds of grain per head per day.

April grazing in the Willamette Valley

Jon has learned a great deal since then. His rotation management has improved and he’s made significant investments in his pasture “facilities.” He’s learned a great deal about conserving excess pasture as baleage – grass & clover silage in plastic-wrapped large round bales. Today he feeds approximately 2 pounds of grain per cow per day. His average milk production today is 12,000 pounds of milk per cow. Reduced production?!? Why, that’s un-American!! But here’s the power of the cost of production lever - His feed cost went from 50% of his milk check to 6%! He figures he’s doubled his profit! His cows have a productive life that’s 2.5 times the national average. And Jon feels he and his family (and his cows, too!) have a better quality of life.

Concrete pathways, sound fences,
water in each paddock,
pasture renovation. Essential expenses!

It is important to remember, however, that low cost of production does NOT equal low cost. Proper fences, water for his cows in every paddock, concrete walkways, and pasture renovation all cost. Cutting back on these expenses will NOT produce the results he has achieved.

*****************

On April 16th I gave my “Turning the Food Pyramid Upside Down” presentation at the Small Farm Trade Fair in Madras, Oregon. This event, its 35th year as I understand, was produced by the Small Farmer’s Journal. This journal (“A tool for self sufficiency Starting your farm and keeping it going All in unison with nature”) focuses on animal-powered agriculture. The weather wasn’t helpful, but it was still a wonderful weekend. I met a number of interesting folks and learned about a wonderful program, Tera Nova Community Farm, that incorporates organic vegetable production into the education program at a Big Picture school in Beaverton, Oregon. I was reminded that the “small farm” community is a tremendously broad one, with many different philosophies and guiding principles.

Central Oregon pasture in April

*****************

More New Conventional Wisdom

Early in April, a fellow member of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society told me about an upcoming webinar. Thanks to him, on April 19th I “attended” the Washington State University webinar “Pre-harvest E. coli O157:H7 in cattle” by Dr David Smith from the University of Nebraska.

Escherichia coli O157:H7 is an important food born pathogen. And, I’m afraid, it’s another example of the new conventional wisdom. I have frequently heard or read someone from the organic, grassfed, and/or low-carb/primal/paleo communities say that grain-feeding produces or promotes E. coli O157:H7 while grass feeding eliminates or reduces it. The science, I’m afraid does not support this claim. In fact, studies show that there is no difference in the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in live animals fed a variety of diets (Fegan, et al., 2004, Van Baale, et al., 2011)

A very small USDA study of a handful of cattle in 1998 did suggest that feeding cattle hay could reduce E. coli O157:H7 (Diego-Gonzales, et al., 1998), but that small study’s findings were never duplicated in larger research. More than a decade later, a large, accumulated body of research strongly suggests that E. coli O157:H7 appears to be a natural bacterium found in the gut of cattle regardless of production system.

“Organic” and “natural” methods don’t seem to impact bacteria in the gut either. In 2009, researchers examined the incidence of pathogenic E. coli O157:H7 in organic and naturally raised cattle and concluded, “Our study found similar prevalences of E. coli O157:H7 in the feces of organically and naturally raised beef cattle, and our prevalence estimates for cattle in these types of production systems are similar to those reported previously for conventionally raised feedlot cattle.” (Reinstein, et al., 2009)

Proper butchering, handling, and preparation practices are the best defense against E. coli O157:H7 and other food-borne illnesses. The good news is that, despite (or perhaps because of) increased vigilance and improved diagnostic technologies, the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 contamination and disease have declined dramatically.

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) show that the presence of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef products declined by 63 percent between 2000 and 2009 to approximately one third of one percent of ground beef samples tested. That means that the pathogen will only be found in approximately 1 in 300 samples (USDA).

In 2010 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that food-borne illnesses are declining. In particular, the CDC said that the U.S. had achieved its Healthy People 2010 public health goal of less than one E. coli O157:H7 illness per 100,000 people (CDC, 2010). This decline has occurred as public health tracking has expanded significantly. In 1993 few states tracked E. coli O157:H7 infections in people. Today, every state in the U.S. routinely monitors the incidence of these infections and reports to federal officials. The observation of a decline, under these conditions of increased scrutiny, is encouraging.

While an E. coli infection is a serious illness, especially for the young, elderly, or those with a compromised immune system, it causes less than a tenth of the total deaths due to Salmonella or Listeria. Less than 3% of all deaths due to food-borne pathogens in the US each year are due to E. coli O157:H7, while Salmonella and Listeria are responsible for 31 and 28 percent, respectively (Mead, et al., 1999).

But one E. coli O157:H7 illness in 100,000 people per year sounds pretty high, doesn’t it? Well let’s compare it to your one-year risk of dying* as a result of: a car accident (approximately one out of 6500); murder or falling (one in 16,500); walking across the street (one in 48,500); drowning or fire (one in 88,000) (Bailey, 2006).

* less than 1% of E. coli O157:H7 cases are fatal (Mead, et al., 1999)

References:

Bailey, R. 2006. "Don't Be Terrorized: You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder." Reason.com. Accessed at http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized, May 8, 2011.

CDC. 2010. CDC Press Release, "CDC Report Shows Success in Fighting E. coli O157:H7." April 23, 2010, Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100415b.htm, May 8, 2011.

Diego-Gonzales, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, and J. B. Russell. 1998. "Grain Feeding and the Dissemination of Acid-Resistant Escherichia coli from Cattle." Science 11 September 1998: 281(5383)1666-1668.

Fegan, N., P. Vanderlinde, G. Higgs, and P. Desmarchelier. 2004. "The prevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces of cattle from different production systems at slaughter." Journal of Applied Microbiology. 97, 362-370. Accessed at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118807187/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 May 8, 2011.

Mead, P. S., L. S., V. Dietz, L. F. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P. M. Griffin, and R. V. Tauxe. 1999. "Synopses: Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States." Vol. 5 No. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm, May 8, 2011.

Reinstein, S., J. T. Fox, X. Shi, M. J. Alam, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2009. "Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Organically and Naturally Raised Beef Cattle." Applied and Environmental Microbiology.75(16):5421-5423.

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. "Microbiological Testing Program for Escherichia coli O157:H7." Accessed at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/ground_beef_e.Coli_Testing_results/index.asp, May 8, 2011.

Van Baale, M. J., J. M. Sargeant, D. P. Gnad, B. M. DeBey, K. F. Lechtenberg, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2004. "Effect of Forage or Grain Diets with or without Monensin on Ruminal Persistence and Fecal Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Cattle." Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 70(9):5336-5342. Accessed at http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/9/5336, May 8, 2011.
******************

A cell biologist, an author, a psychiatrist and a forage agronomist meet for dinner …

No, that isn’t the opening line of a joke. It really happened!

Judy Barnes Baker, Dr. Ann Childers, yours truly, and Dr. Richard Feinman

On April 21st I met with Judy Barnes Baker, Dr. Ann Childers, and Dr. Feinman, founder of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, for a get together and brainstorming session in Portland. We enjoyed a lovely dinner at Veritable Quandary.

Judy Barnes Baker, is the author of Carb Wars; Sugar is the New Fat. She has posted on our meeting at her blog Carb Wars.

Dr. Ann Childers, a fellow member of the Healthy Nation Coalition as well as the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, is a child and adult-trained psychiatric physician who focuses on nutrition in treating her patients. Anyone interested in mind-diet interactions should follow her blog.

I’d met Dr. Feinman in Seattle last year at the joint meeting of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and Nutrition and Metabolism Society. His scientific background and his passion about confronting the conventional make him a fascinating dinner partner. He’s recently started blogging, and it’s well worth reading.

The mission statement of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society states:

"The Metabolism Society is dedicated to addressing the problems of obesity, diabetes & cardiovascular disease through public awareness and education. The Society believes specifically that the therapeutic potential of carbohydrate-restricted diets for the treatment of these diseases is under-investigated and under-utilized. The Society seeks to support research in this area....Our mission is to improve current nutritional guidelines and to see that sound scientific information is provided for the public."

You can be a part of this important work by joining the Metabolism Society for only $10.00 a year! More information about ways you can support truth in science is here: http://www.nmsociety.org/

******************

Because music is important to our health, too

Steve Schneider, Dee Dee Tibbits, Yours Truly, Lawrence Huntley,
Mick Doherty (my teacher), Rick Fogel (made my dulcimer)

April ended and May began with the Spring Fling Rendezvous Hammered Dulcimer Gathering in Sandy, Oregon. I’ve organized and produced this event for the past twelve years. For the last eight years it has been held at Oral Hull Park, which is run by the Oral Hull Foundation for the Blind (a truly worth cause if you’re looking for a cause to support). This year’s three featured instructors, Dee Dee Tibbits, Steve Schneider, and Kendra Ward (and her husband Bob Bence) joined the “local boys” (Mick Doherty, Rick Fogel, Lawrence Huntley, and Carl Thor). These instructors provided a wonderful weekend for 42 hammered dulcimer players from eight different states. I’ve posted several pictures, if you’re interested: vol 1 and vol 2.

*****************
Now to get back on track and post on the 15th! It will be on some more items of new conventional wisdom - hormone and antibiotic use in animal agriculture.
*****************

Ignorance and Addiction

2011-04-15T09:40:00.000-07:00

I’ve written before about how the “low fat diet is the healthy diet” message has infected so many other disciplines. Those concerned with environmental issues and agricultural policy are not immune to this contagion. Here are two examples.

Mid-April grazing in the Willamette Valley

Environmental Issues

One piece of conventional “wisdom” is that animal agriculture is responsible, in part, for anthropogenic global climate change (formerly known as “global warming”). If that were true, then advocating a diet based upon animal products would harm the environment, while plant-based diets would save it. Hence “Meatless Mondays” and “Meat=Heat” campaigns. Some recent web-surfing took me to the Meat and Livestock Australia web site. Lots of interesting information, including their Red Meat Green Facts and Myth Busting pages. Two of the busted myths are worth mentioning:

Myth: It takes 13,209 gallons (50,000 liters) of water to produce 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of beef

Have you ever heard of “virtual water figures”? I hadn’t. Apparently virtual water figures attribute every drop of rain that falls on a farm to the production of red meat, ignoring that most of the water ends up in waterways, as ground water, or is used by trees and other plants not grazed by cattle. It is obviously inappropriate to use virtual water figures for environmental measurements. A more appropriate figure is from a life cycle assessment that calculates the amount of water used to produce a pound of beef from grazing on farm to exiting the processing facility. A 2009 life cycle assessment carried out by The University of New South Wales for three beef production systems in southern Australia found that it takes 7 to 143 gallons (27 to 540 liters) of water to produce 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of beef (See this link for more information.). That’s a figure almost 100 times less that the myth, at least!

Myth: Livestock produce more emissions than the various forms of transportation, combined.

This frequently quoted figure comes from Livestock's Long Shadow, a report published in 2006 by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). A 2010 review of this report by scientists from the University of California Davis found that the FAO authors calculated greenhouse gas emissions in two different ways, resulting in an unfair comparison (link to abstract). One of the authors of the FAO report, Livestock Policy Officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted the criticism. "I must say honestly that he [Professor Mitloehner] has a point; we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport". The estimate of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted from the world's livestock stated in Livestock’s Long Shadow is 6 times greater than that from the Environmental Protection Agency (18% vs. less than 3%).

I think the evidence shows that animal agriculture is the only truly sustainable form of agriculture we’ll ever hope to have, and that anything else will be a compromise. I was pleased, therefore to find the Meat and Livestock Australia site (thanks to Neil Lane). But as I read down through the list of myths, it happened again!

In response to the myth that “Replacing red meat would be beneficial for people's health” they state that “Red meat delivers nutrients essential for health and wellbeing including: protein, iron, zinc, B vitamins and long chain omega-3s.” Good points, I agree. They then provide a link to “Find out more about red meat and nutrition.” On that page we find the statement “With less than 4% saturated fat, trimmed red meat has the Heart Foundation’s Tick of Approval.”

Sigh …

Agricultural Policy

A colleague from the Healthy Nation Coalition recently asked me about George Pyle’s book Raising Less Corn, More Hell: The Case for the Independent Farm and Against Industrial Food. I am sympathetic to the case that Pyle is trying to make. Our agricultural system is broken, too. I believe that our policy incorrectly favors the largest producers, and subsidizes the production of commodities that are NOT required for human health. But mid-way through his book, Pyle goes wrong. The fact that he was so close to the truth when he did so made it all the more disconcerting.

On page 88 Pyle offers an explanation for why “Poor women of all races and ethnic groups are 50 percent more likely to be obese than are their richer sisters.” He suggests it’s due to the fact that “poor people have diets heavy in starches and sugars, processed foods that are thought to be cheaper and more filling.” I have no problem agreeing with that. Later, on page 89, Pyle writes “the London-based International Obesity Task Force estimates that some parts of Africa have more overnourished children than undernourished ones. (Over-nourished, that is, in the sense of too many sugars and starches.)” And then, on page 90, Pyle writes “By 2004 the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found another link between hunger and obesity in developing countries, a link also caused by the increasing availability of American-style cheap, fatty foods.“

Wait a minute! Where did the “fatty” come from? He hadn’t made that point in his preceding discussion! He was so close to making a significant breakthrough. But having gone off the rails, he proceeds to destroy the right-of-way. “The hungry people of rural Africa, Asia, and, most maddeningly, of the rural communities that consistently top the list of America’s poorest counties are like the amputated toes of the diabetic or the diseased heart of the cholesterol-loaded person. They are unseen parts damaged by the unthinking efforts of the rest of the body to ensure it is always full.” On page 92, he states “Cheap corn not only translates to cheap beef, which means we eat more of it and get fat” and that beef will “shorten their lives by an indefinite number of years.”

I’ve found it hard to continue reading this book. If he’s this far off on this, how many other factual errors did he make throughout the rest of the book? Until we’ve completely uproot the faulty reasoning that got us into the chronic disease epidemic we now face, we will have difficulty fixing what’s so broken.

Addiction

And we must remember that we’re not just striving to correct factual error. We’re facing a population that is addicted to carbohydrates. Paul John Scott’s recent article, Are Carbs More Addictive Than Cocaine? might seem like hyperbole, but I don’t think so.

In “Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution” I read the story of a diabetic woman who, by following Dr. Bernstein’s program, had significantly lowered her blood sugars, dramatically improved total cholesterol/HDL ratio (meaning she’d lowered her cardiac risk), reversed the vision loss she had been experiencing, almost completely restored the feeling in her feet, along with some weight loss as a fringe benefit. A critical part of Dr. Bernstein’s program to achieve normal blood sugars is, of course, a restricted carbohydrate diet. After describing all of these improvements in her health, this patient says: “I miss the goodies I give my grandkids, all the cookies, candy bars, ice cream. And the holidays. Everything’s kind of restricted.” If that doesn’t sound like addiction to you, it sure does to me! I understand cravings and missing things I used to eat, believe me! But to have experienced such an improvement in your health, to have been taught so much by the extraordinarily intensive counseling and coaching approach that Dr. Bernstein employs, and to still think that these “food” items are fit food for human beings – let alone your diabetes-prone grandchildren – is frankly breathtaking. Imagine a clean and sober woman saying: “I sure miss the methamphetamine, especially when I give it to my grandkids.”

References

Bernstein, R. K. 2007. “Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars. Little, Brown and Company, New York, NY.

Pyle, G. 2005. “Raising Less Corn, More Hell: The Case for the Independent Farm and Against Industrial Food.” Public Affairs, New York, NY.

Some Mammals Require Dietary Carbohydrate

2011-04-02T21:29:00.000-07:00

But they’re ruminants, and we aren’t

I’ve been busy since the last post. I’m grateful for the opportunities I’ve been given, but it is a challenge! I made a commitment (dare I say a “resolution”?) to post items to this blog on the 1^st and 15^th of each month. Looks like I’ll miss this one by just a bit. I’ll try to get back on track for the next post, although the next few weeks will include presentations at the Douglas County Livestock Association’s Spring Livestock Conference on April 9^th in Roseburg, Oregon and at the Small Farm Trade Fair in Madras, Oregon on April 16^th.

Since my last post I’ve given a presentation, attended a conference, and tried to work my way through a couple of books. And I’m constantly being reminded of just how much we have to do to before “the system” is fixed.

I spoke to the Crook County Stock Growers Association’s Annual Banquet on March 19^th. The event was held at the at the Crook County Fairgrounds in Prineville, Oregon. The well attended event was, in part, a fund-raiser for their Beef For Kids initiative. They are striving to get good-quality, locally-grown beef back on the menus of Crook County public schools. A truly worthy goal. I know that the cattlemen in Malheur County are already engaged in a similar initiative, and I hope we’ll see this effort spread throughout the nation. The “food” we provide to our school children via our school meal programs is truly abysmal. And the chance to repeat the message, in various ways, that animal products are fundamental to human health should never be missed. My presentation, “Food For Thought,” was well received. Several folks kindly shared their personal experiences with me. I was grateful that I could again direct people to the sources of information that have so profoundly changed my own life. Eventually I found myself standing in the dinner line next to a long-time friend. Suddenly I became aware of one of the paintings that were hung on the wall over the pass-through from the kitchen. Oh, the irony!

Figure 1:How to fatten a hog, and a human!

I also attended the Oregon Forage and Grassland Council’s 2011 Annual Meeting in Albany on March 24^th. This year’s keynote speaker was Neil Lane, an Australian dairy farm management consultant from Intelact. He shared a wealth of information about pasture-based dairy management in Australia and New Zealand. What he tried to impart to us can have an immense impact on the Pacific Northwest. Our environment is unique to North American. The potential for grass-based animal agriculture in our region is huge. We have progressive grass farmers here, but there’s room for many more!

“We don’t manage paddocks – we manage tillers!”

- Neil Lane

Now a clump of perennial ryegrass might look like a single plant, but it’s actually a collection of tillers. While each tiller has its own leaves and roots, it is connected to neighboring tillers at its base. These tillers share water, nutrients and carbohydrates via this connection. A newly-established ryegrass plant consists of one tiller until it reaches the 3 leaf stage. If there is a low tiller density, sunlight will penetrate to the base of the sward. This stimulates the production of daughter tillers. These daughter tillers grow from buds in the leaf axil, appearing first as small one leaf tillers growing inside an older leaf at the base of the plant. This older leaf soon dies and disappears. The new tiller continues to put out leaves and soon becomes a separate tiller with its own root system. Each new leaf emerges on the opposite side of the tiller to the previous leaf.

Figure 2. A ryegrass tiller with 3 1/2 leaves (from Guest, 2008)

A perennial ryegrass tiller maintains a maximum of 3 live leaves. As each new leaf emerges after this 3 leaf stage, the oldest leaf dies. Maximum perennial ryegrass yield is achieved by allowing the tillers to grow to 3 leaves as each subsequent leaf is bigger than the previous leaf. The 1^st leaf contributes 15–20% of total pasture biomass, the 2^nd leaf 30–35% and the 3^rd leaf 45–50% with little difference in metabolizable energy content between the 1^st and 3^rd leaf (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Leaf stage vs. yield (from Guest, 2008)

Provided water is not limiting, leaf growth rate is controlled mainly by temperature. Perennial ryegrass will usually grow a new leaf every 6–7 days in the warm, sunny days of early fall, but could take 10–13 days or more in the colder, shorter days of mid to late fall.

Tillers form glucose and then other water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in the leaves via photosynthesis. These WSC (also known as Non-Fiber Carbohydrates, or NFC) are used to provide energy for ongoing growth and respiration. The availability of WSC in ryegrass tillers has a marked effect on the plant’s re-growth potential and ability to persist after grazing. When the fourth leaf emerges and the oldest leaf dies, there is no further build up of plant WSC levels (Figure 4). Proper grazing management must take into consideration this relationship to promote improved utilization and production. Improved pasture utilization and production will lead to optimal profit.

Figure 4. Leaf stage and water soluble carbohydrate levels (from Guest, 2008)

Studies have shown that it is best to use leaf appearance intervals

to decide when to graze, not pasture height.

- Kelly Guest, 2008

Grazing at the 3^rd leaf stage doesn’t just improve pasture production and utilization. It also improves animal performance. Proper rumen function requires at least as much NFC as Ruminally Degradable Protein (RDP) in the herbage eaten. If there is too much RDP, it is converted to ammonia in the rumen. This excess ammonia needs to be detoxified to urea and excreted in urine. This process requires energy, and can have a negative effect on both production and reproduction in the grazing animal. Green growing pasture contains more than enough RDP for any ruminant’s requirements, but the NFC are frequently limiting. Recent research has shown that the ratio of RDP to NFC becomes more balanced after the 2-leaf stage, as NFC levels increase with re-growth, while RDP levels decline due to leaf maturity. The ratio of RDP to NFC can be as high as 5:1 at the 1^st leaf stage, declining to 1:2 at the 3^rd leaf stage. The levels of minerals in perennial ryegrass change markedly with re-growth, too. Potassium, which is usually at levels far in excess of the animal’s requirements, declines, while calcium and magnesium, important for milk production, increase with re-growth to the 4-leaf stage. One indicator of appropriate mineral status for performance of dairy cows is the ratio of potassium over calcium and magnesium. This ratio should be below about 2.2 to reduce the incidence of grass tetany and other metabolic problems. The ratio falls from about 6 at the 1^st leaf stage, to below 2.2 at the 3^rd leaf stage. Another indicator of appropriate mineral status is the ratio of calcium to phosphorus. The recommended ratio for milking cows is above about 1.6:1. In perennial ryegrass this ratio changes from about 1:1 at the 1^st leaf stage, to over 2:1 at the 3^rd leaf stage.

Table 1. Nutrient values of perennial ryegrass herbage at different leaf stages. (Donaghy, 2005)

There is abundant evidence of farmers increasing their profitability by using leaf stage for grazing management. But new ideas aren’t always embraced by the farming community. If the New Zealanders are lagging in their adoption of this philosophy, as Neil told us, then how long will it be before it’s adopted in the US? Seven-plus dollar a bushel corn may help the adoption rate!

Figure 5: Spring in Western Oregon

References:

Donaghy, D. and B. Fulkerson. 2005. ‘Principles for developing an effective grazing management system for ryegrass-based pastures’. Press release Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research. http://www.crtkyneton.com.au/seeds/heritageseeds/dairy-pasturemanagement.pdf

Guest, K., 2008. “Pasture Phase Farming – More Than a Passing Phase: A Handbook to Ryegrass Management on the Esperance Sandplain.” Lemon, J., J. Ryan, M. Ryan, N. Witham, and J. Lucey, Eds. South East Premium Wheat Growers Association. http://www.sepwa.org.au/pastures/book.html

Changing Mindsets

2011-03-15T19:44:00.000-07:00

What’s the difference between dirt and soil? Well, dirt is the stuff we wash out of our clothes. Soil is the loose surface layer of the earth’s crust in which plant roots develop. Quoting Ralph Inge, “All of nature is a conjugation of the verb ‘to eat.’” And, ultimately, the soil eats us all. We must learn to value our soil. All life is tied to the thin layer of topsoil covering the land. Soil chemistry determines whether civilization can be supported or not. Some civilizations apparently became extinct because they did not understand the importance of their soils. Lierre Keith, in her book “The Vegetarian Myth,” refers to topsoil as “fossil soil” to emphasize the fact that this precious resource takes millennia to form. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, it takes 500 years to form an inch of topsoil. And like fossil fuel, we’re using it up at an unsustainable rate. According to the USDA, one-third of U.S. agricultural land is eroding faster than the sustainable rate. The “sustainable rate” is the acceptable rate of soil loss. There are no figures for the proportion on U.S. agricultural land where top soil is increasing. Perennial pastures improve soil structure and fertility and decrease erosion losses. Pastures build topsoil!

Take an apple and imagine that it represents the earth. Now cut it into quarters and discard three of them, since three quarters of the earth’s surface is covered by water. Now cut the remaining quarter in half. One of these sections represents desert, swamps, mountains, and the Arctic and Antarctic regions, so discard it. Slice the remaining section lengthwise into four equal parts. Now you have four 1/32nd sections of the apple. Discard three of them, as they represent areas of the world which have rocky soil too poor for any type of food production, are too wet for food production, or are urban areas. Carefully peel the remaining section. This small bit of peel represents all the soil which humans depend on for food production (Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom, 2008).

But wait a minute! What about the grasslands which occupy 40% of the earth’s land surface (World Resources Institute)? “Crop production” and “food production” are NOT synonymous. This is the flawed mindset that agriculture means crop production and that farming means cropping. This mindset assumes that pasture-based livestock systems are less productive than cropping systems, and that pasture-based systems are less productive than confinement systems. These assumptions usually compare single-species pasture-based livestock systems on less productive soils with crop production on highly productive soils. Rarely are integrated, multiple species grazing systems considered, nor are these two philosophies compared on soils of equal productivity. The irony here is that this country’s most productive soils developed under the Midwest’s tall grass prairie. And the prairie was well managed by the Native Americans. But wait! Didn’t the Native Americans “live lightly on the land?” Once again, we’re confronted with a badly flawed worldview.

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans” (Lott, 2002).

Images of woodlands, unsullied by human presence, and of the Great Plains (or Prairie, in Canada) with its huge herds of bison (Bison bison) may come to mind when we think about pre-European North America. But this popular image of pre-Columbian North America as a pristine paradise is incorrect. When Europeans first arrived in North America, they found anything but a primeval landscape. Instead, they encountered a land significantly altered by humans through the use of fire, sophisticated agricultural techniques, mining, and road and mound building (Mann, 2006).

“At the time of Columbus the Western Hemisphere had been thoroughly painted with the human brush. Agriculture occurred in as much as two-thirds of what is now the continental United States, with large swathes of the Southwest terraced and irrigated. Among the maize fields in the Midwest and Southeast, mounds by the thousand stippled the land. The forests of the eastern seaboard had been peeled back from the coasts, which were now lined with farms. Salmon nets stretched across almost every ocean-bound stream in the Northwest. And almost everywhere there was Indian fire.” (Mann, 2006)

From fire created and maintained prairies and managed forests, to earthworks and settlements, the American landscape by the time of European contact had already endured thousands of years of modification by large Native American populations. The pristine wilderness view, to a large extent, is the invention of 19th-century romantic and primitivist writers like Henry David Thoreau and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (Denevan, 1992). The reality is that the impact of native peoples was nearly ubiquitous, even in areas with comparatively sparse Indian populations. Many scholars now believe there were more than 90 million inhabitants of the New World when Christopher Columbus first set sail for the Indies (Denevan, 1996).

The climate responsible for the eastward extension of the tall grass prairies disappeared thousands of years ago, but manmade fires preserved it in areas such as southern Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and parts of Ohio by halting the process of ecological succession which would have resulted in these areas becoming dominated by trees as the natural climax vegetation (Williams, 1989). Further east, forest management with fire produced an environment that benefited wildlife and humans. The effectiveness of these practices is demonstrated by the observations that bison (Bison bison) once roamed along the east coast from New York to Georgia (Mann, 2006) and that elk (Cervus canadensis) have been observed in every continental state except Florida (Manning, 1997). “When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans” (Lott, 2002).

Bison grazing in the Tallgrass Prairie Nature Preserve, Osage County, Oklahoma

The popular misconception of pre-European North America as a “wilderness” reflects a lack of understanding of pre-Columbian North American conditions and practices, and a modern environmentalist ethic (Mann, 2006). “The post-Columbian abundance of bison,” was largely due to “Eurasian diseases that decreased [Indian] hunting,” according to Valerius Geist, a bison researcher at the University of Calgary (Geist, 1998). The huge herds of bison that were described by early European settlers were a symptom of the destruction of the human-animal-environment system that the Native Americans had operated for centuries before European contact, rather than an example of the “natural”, undisturbed grassland-wildlife system. Thus, the massive, thundering herds were pathological, something that the land had not seen before and was unlikely to see again (Geist, 1998, Mann, 2006). The prehistoric human imprint on the North American landscape was masked by the decimation of Native American populations as a result of exposure to Old World diseases, for which they had no immunities.

Charles C. Mann, in his book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, writes:

“When the newcomers [European settlers] moved west, they were preceded by a wave of disease and then a wave of ecological disturbance. The former crested with fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to tamp down, and it was followed by many aftershocks. “The virgin forest was not encountered in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,” wrote historian Stephen Pyne, “it was invented in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Far from destroying pristine wilderness, that is, Europeans bloodily created it.

“By 1800 the hemisphere was thick with artificial wilderness. If “forest primeval” means woodland unsullied by the human presence, Denevan has written, there was much more of it in the nineteenth century than in the seventeenth.

“The product of demographic calamity, the newly created wilderness was indeed beautiful. But it was built on Indian graves and every bit as much a ruin as the temples of the Maya.”

Despite the horrible pestilences of the 15th through 18th centuries, the physical health and condition of the plains-dwelling Native Americans were far more robust than those of their contemporary Europeans in the 19th century. Explorers who first contacted the Kiowa and other bison-dependent nations documented that the diet of these people was almost exclusively meat-based. Observations made during the 1830s recorded that it was rare to find a male of the Cheyenne tribe less than six feet (183 cm) tall, while among the Osage people in the Kansas area few were less than six feet tall, and some were seven feet (213 cm) tall (Catlin, 1844). In addition, there was no evidence of the chronic diseases already observed in European populations (Taubes, 2008).

The European settlers suffered from their own flawed mindsets. They referred to the Great Plains as the Great American Desert, because of its lack of trees. This reflected the European farming mindset typical of the 18th and 19th centuries (Manning, 2007). They failed to recognize the value of grassland and its true potential, as well as its unique requirements. Governmental policies and the settlers’ farming practices were ill-suited to the Great Plains. Areas of natural grassland, the result of an interaction between climate, topology, soil, plant, grazing animals, and man-made fire, were plowed out for crop production. The topsoil, our nation’s greatest natural resource, was no longer protected (and increased) by a protective layer of an adapted perennial plant community. When the next drought occurred, as they periodically do in that region, the catastrophe known as then dust bowl began. Top soil was lost at a phenomenal rate. By 1934, The Yearbook of Agriculture announced that “100 million acres have lost all or most of their topsoil, another 125 million acres are about to and 35 million acres cannot grow crops of any kind.”

"The ultimate meaning of the dust storms of the 1930s was that America as a whole, not just the plains, was badly out of balance with its natural environment. Unbounded optimism about the future, careless disregard of nature’s limits and uncertainties, uncritical faith in Providence, devotion to self-aggrandizement - all these were national as well as regional characteristics." Robert Worster

I recently attended the 11th Annual Oregon State University Extension Small Farms Conference. There were many young people among the six hundred people attending. I find this exciting and encouraging, since the average age of this nations farmers, a steady decreasing group, has been increasing for many years. The future of agriculture in this country depends upon young people taking up the calling of producing food for those who don’t. I learned a lot and met a number of interesting folks. It is critical, I believe, that these young farmers understand that grass farming is the agricultural model for the 21st century.

Breaking Prairie Sod, Camrose, Alberta, 1900
from this website

"The Last of the Virgin Sod"

by Rudolph Ruste

We broke today on the homestead

The last of the virgin sod,

And a haunting feeling oppressed me

That we’d marred a work of God.

A fragrance rose from the furrow,

A fragrance both fresh and old:

It was fresh with the dew of morning,

Yet aged with time untold.

The creak of leather and clevis,

The rip of the coulter blade,

And we wreck what God with the labor

Of a million years had made.

I thought, while laying the last land,

Of the tropical sun and rains,

Of the jungles, glaciers and oceans

Which had helped to make these plains.

Of monsters, horrid and fearful,

Which reigned in the land we plow,

And it seemed to me so presumptuous

Of man to claim it now.

So when, today on the homestead,

We finished the virgin sod,

Is it strange I almost regretted

To have marred that work of God?

References

Catlin, G. 1844. Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians, London. Republished in 1973 by Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.

Denevan, W.M. 1996. Carl Sauer and Native American Population Size. Geographical Review 86:385-97.

Denevan, W.M. 1992. The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 82:369-85.

Geist, V. 1998. Buffalo Nation: History and Legend of the North American Bison. Stillwater, MN: Voyager Press.

Keith, Lierre. 2009. The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. Crescent City, CA: Flashpoint Press.

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mann, Charles C. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Vintage.

Manning, Richard. 1997. Grassland: The History, Biology, Politics and Promise of the American Prairie. New York: Penguin.

Pyne, S. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stanturf, J. 2009. Use of Fire by Native Americans.The Southern Forest Resource Assessment Summary Report. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service.http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain/report/fire/fire-06.htm. Retrieved 25 January, 2011.

Taubes, Gary. 2008. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. New York: Anchor Books.

USGS. 2006. Regional Trends of Biological Resources – Grasslands.Prairie Past and Present. Fig. 2. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/grlands/pastpres.htm. Retrieved 27 January, 2011.

Williams, G. W. 2002. “Are There Any ‘Natural’ Plant Communities?” in Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature, in C. E. Kay and R. T. Simmons, eds. Salt Lake City, UP: University of Utah Press. 2002, 179-214.

Williams, M. 1989. Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

World Resources Institute. “Grassland extent and change.” Washington, DC http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8269. Retrieved 15 March, 2011.

Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom. 2008. “The Earth as an Apple: Wyoming Science, Social Studies, & Mathematics.” http://www.wyomingagclassroom.org/. Retieved 15 March, 2011.

Nature Votes Last

2011-03-01T08:56:00.000-08:00

Temperature, humidity, soil, sunlight, electricity, vital force, express themselves primarily in vegetable existence that furnishes the basis of that animal life which yields sustenance to the human race. What a man, a community, a nation can do, think, suffer, imagine or achieve depends upon what it eats.

The primary form of food is grass. Grass feeds the ox: the ox nourishes man: man dies and goes to grass again; and so the tide of life, with everlasting repetition, in continuous circles, moves endlessly on and upward, and in more senses than one, all flesh is grass.

From “In Praise of Bluegrass,” an address by John James Ingalls (1833-1900)
Senator from Kansas from 1873 to 1891.
Originally printed in the Kansas Magazine in 1872.

We frequently forget that the law of unintended consequences still rules. Our actions, like medications, have multiple effects. Some effects are desirable, some are undesirable. Without a thoughtful consideration of all of these effects, we cannot make intelligent decisions. And even after such thoughtful consideration, we are still likely to be surprised by some previously unknown effects. A rancher once told me his version of this law – “Nature Votes Last!”

I visited a lovely ranch property several years ago. The owners had recently relocated from an area where the quality of the roads made buying a new car unwise. But now they were driving on good roads, so they had purchased a nice, new, white Cadillac. She loved their new car. While the county roads were asphalt, their long ranch drive was not. He soon tired of washing mud off of their new, white Cadillac. His solution? Pave the drive!

They were in the early stages of developing this property. They hadn’t constructed sufficient interior fencing, so they couldn’t control the movement of their cattle. The cows were pretty much free to wander where ever they chose, and they were very happy that this passive solar energy collector had been installed. Every night they gratefully camped on this warm asphalt. Anyone who’s spent time around bovines knows what they do soon after standing up. So instead of washing mud off her new, white Cadillac, he was washing off … processed forage!

Nature votes last!

For the last thirty years, the official dietary policy of the United States Government has been that every American needs to be on a low-fat, reduced-cholesterol diet to prevent cardio vascular heart disease, obesity, and other chronic diseases. This policy was enacted by people who believed that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raised the level of cholesterol in the blood, and that this increased one’s risk of developing heart disease. The obvious solution, equivalent to paving the ranch drive, was to eat less saturated fat and cholesterol.

It would be one thing to be surprised by some unforeseen effects of such a sweeping policy, but it’s quite another that they failed to properly consider all of the information before enacting this disastrous policy. These policy makers ignored the fact that there was little data to support their position and a great deal to refute it (Taubes, 2008).

Here’s a quick test (thanks to Barry Groves):

Consider two groups of animals:
Group one - cattle, gorillas, and sheep
Group two - humans, lions, and polar bear

Which of these two groups of mammals are “designed” to digest a low fat diet?

Neither!

Digestion and ingestion are different processes. Clearly the first group of mammals ingest a low fat, high fiber diet. But mammalian enzymes cannot hydrolyze (digest) the cellulose and other complex carbohydrates that make up plant fiber. Microorganisms, however, produce enzymes that can. Herbivorous mammals live in a symbiotic relationship with these organisms. The host mammal possess digestive systems that permit fore-gut fermentation (the cattle and sheep, for example, via their reticulo-rumen), or hind-gut fermentation (the gorilla, for example, via it’s enlarged colon and cecum). In either case, the products of these fermentation processes are short-chain, volatile fatty acids (principally acetic, propionic, and butyric acids). Interestingly enough, 60 – 80 % of a ruminant’s (Pond, 2005) and 66 % of a gorilla’s (Popovich, et al., 1997) energy needs come from these fatty acids. These animals digest a high fat diet!

Humans are meat eating cooks.

Mankind has been consuming animal products, especially fat, for a very long time. Several authors have argued that one of the two critical drivers for the development of our species, Homo sapiens, is the consumption of a diet consisting primarily of organ meats, animal fats, and muscle meats (Kaplan et al., 2000, Stanford and Bunn, 2001, Bramble and Lieberman, 2004). The other developmental driver was the practice of cooking (Wrangham, et al., 1999, Wrangham, 2006). Wrangham’s book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human is a fascinating and very readable examination of this topic.

All living tissue requires energy for maintenance. Our basal metabolic rate, when adjusted for total body size, is the same as other primates (Leonard and Robertson, 1997). By eating a truly nutrient dense diet, one based upon animal products, our ancient ancestors no longer needed to maintain the large digestive tracts required by mammals living on high fiber diets. Our large intestine, or colon, is less than 60 percent of the mass that would be expected from our total body mass (Martin, et al., 1985). In fact, the volume of the entire human gut is only 60 percent of what would be expected from our total body mass (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995). This reduction in human gut size frees up at least 10 percent of the expected basal metabolic rate for our brain’s requirement (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995). In addition, the cholesterol (and other nutrients, including choline) provided by a diet based on animal products provided the vital “raw material” to build the brain (Leonard, et al., 2007). Plant-based diets lack these vital nutrients.

One can wish that our survival did not require killing. But, as Ralph Inge said, “All of nature is a conjugation of the verb ‘to eat.’” Wishing won’t make it so. The USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 continues the pattern of recommending carbohydrate-based diets, with restricted consumption of red meat, full-fat dairy, cholesterol, saturated fat, and salt. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee ignored peer-reviewed scientific research demonstrating the harm this approach has caused and will continue to cause (Hite, et al, 2010). Given what we know about our nature, we should not be surprised by the epidemic of obesity and chronic disease we are experiencing in this country, and around the world.

Nature votes last!

References

Aiello, L., and P. Wheeler. 1995. “The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution.” Current Anthropology 36:199-221.

Bramble, D. M., and D. E. Lieberman. 2004. “Endurance Running and the Evolution of Homo.” Nature 432:345-352.

Hite, A.H., R.D. Feinman, G.E. Guzman, M. Satin, P.A. Schoenfeld, R.J. Wood. 2010. In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee. Nutrition 26 (2010) 915–924

Kaplan, H., K. Hill, J. Lancaster, and A. M. Hurtado. 2000. “A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence and Longevity.” Evolutionary Anthropology 9:156-185.

Leonard, W. R., and M. L. Robertson. 1997. “Comparative Primate Energetics and Hominid Evolution.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102:265-281.

Leonard, W. R., J. J. Snodgrass, and M. L. Robertson. 2007. “Effects of Brain Evolution on Human Nutrition and Metabolism.” Annual Review of Nutrition 27:311-327.

Martin, R. D., D. J. Chivers, A. M. MacLarnon, and C. M. Hladik. 1985. “Gastrointestinal Allometry in Primates and Other Mammals.” In Size and Scaling in Primate Biology, W.L. Jungers, ed., 61-89. New York: Plenum.

Pond, W. G., A. W. Bell. Eds. 2005. Encyclopedia of Animal Science. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Popovich, D. G., D. J. A. Jenkins, C. W. C. Kendall, E. S. Dierenfeld, R. W. Carroll, N. Tariq, and E. Vidgen. 1997. “The Western Lowland Gorilla Diet Has Implications for the Health of Humans and Other Hominoids.” J Nutr 127: 2000-2005

Stanford, C. B., and H. T. Bunn. 2001. Meat-Eating and Human Evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Taubes, Gary. 2008. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. New York: Anchor Books.

Wrangham, 2006. “The Cooking Enigma.” In Early Hominin Diets: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable, P. Ungar, ed,. 308-323. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wrangham, R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York :Basic Books.

Wrangham, R., W., J. H. Jones, G. Laden, D. Pilbeam, and N. L. Conklin-Brittain. 1999. “The Raw and the Stolen: Cooking and the Ecology of Human Origins.” Current Anthropology 40:567-594.

The New Conventional Wisdom

2011-02-15T11:10:00.000-08:00

Years ago our teacher told us the story of the man who made canned tuna more popular than canned salmon. As I recall, this advertising guy had the account for some brand of canned tuna, which at the time was mostly being used as pet food. Most customers preferred canned salmon. What could he do to increase the public’s preference for this brand of tuna and thereby increase its sales? He came up with a simple slogan – “Guaranteed not to turn pink in the can.” Sales of canned tuna soon outpaced those of canned salmon. Was the man lying? No, his brand of tuna didn’t turn pink in the can. Neither did salmon, of course (or any other brand of tuna), but that’s beside the point.

This story makes two important points. First, it’s most likely a myth (see Snopes), but that hasn’t stopped it from being repeated endlessly as if it were true. The sincere repetition of false information as if it were true is common. Much of what we call “Conventional Wisdom” consists of just this sort of “knowledge.” Second, the practice of taking a it’s-true-but-so-what statement and making it the basis of an advertizing or public health campaign is alive and well.

Mark Sisson calls conventional wisdom his regular nemesis. It is the commonly accepted body of misinformation known by everyone, but unsupported by actual science. Everyone knows that lard and “other saturated fats” clog your arteries and cause heart disease. Reality TV shows (there’s an oxymoron) treat us to the spectacle of heavy folks being semi-starved and forcibly exercised into becoming lean, so everyone knows (including the “experts” that gave us the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010) that eating less and exercising more is the key to attaining and maintaining a healthy weight. Everyone knows that “you are what you eat” and that the key to health is “all things in moderation.” The scientific literature, however, directly refutes each of these examples of common wisdom. So why, in the face of the current epidemic of obesity and chronic metabolic diseases, have the facts not impacted what everyone knows? It might have something to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars being made every year by the diet, fitness, health, medical, pharmaceutical, food processing, agriculture, regulatory, and public health industries.

Ancel Keys’ original hypothesis was that diets high in fat raised total serum cholesterol, which then produced atherosclerosis and heart disease. This is the infamous “Lipid Hypothesis” of heart disease. Within ten years, however, Keys modified his hypothesis to say that it was the saturated fat that produced the elevation in total serum cholesterol. He and his fellow lipophobes were then joined by members of the vegetarian-industrial complex, who were eager to seize on this message to promote their own interests.

There have always been people who, for a number of reasons (many of which are not justified - see Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability), don’t consume animal products. Since the primary sources of saturated fat in the American diet are animal products, Keys’ message supported the more evangelical vegetarians’ purposes quite well. The roots of the organic and sustainable agriculture movements are thoroughly entwined with the vegetarian belief system. Until recently, the terms “sustainable” and “organic” were synonymous with vegetarian. As these movements grew, their implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) anti animal products messages gained a wider audience. And then there’s the edible oil industry. They were quite happy to use the lipophobes’ message to promote their industrial products – corn oil, soybean oil, cotton seed oil, and derived products like margarine and Crisco – at the expense of their principle competition – natural products like lard, butter, and tallow. Their manufactured products were low in saturated fat and cholesterol. The natural animal products were not. This became the focus of their promotional campaigns. The statement of these differences was, of course, true. The health assertions, it turns out, were not. But they weren’t about to let the facts get in the way of a great sales strategy, so in addition to their own product marketing efforts they provided funding to various vegetarian-advocacy groups, disguised as “public health interest groups,” whose messages usually failed to mention either their benefactors or their principle beliefs. More and more heavily processed, plant-based “food” items are introduced every year, all of which tout their “healthfulness” because they’re low in the cholesterol and saturated fat that “has been linked with heart disease.” Yes, they’ve been “linked,” but what does that mean? It’s as truthful a statement as “won’t turn pink in the can!” Our current conventional wisdom is the result of this unhappy mix of ideology, dogma, and politics.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that we’re forming a new conventional wisdom within the low carb / paleo / primal / grass-finished and local food communities. It, too, is unsupported by the facts. For example, one concern of today’s consumer is the use, and the presumed presence in the meat, of artificial hormones. Poultry and pork are sold with claims of “no artificial hormones.” If you look carefully, you’ll see a very small footnote which states that it’s illegal to use artificial hormones to produce poultry and pork! The statement on the label is true, but so what? And oh, by the way. If you’re concerned about the potentially harmful effects of artificial hormones that might be in the meat you consume, don’t eat soy products. (See The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food by Kaayla T. Daniel.)

Another example: The other day I was reading a grass farming book by a well-known author who repeatedly stated that “chemical fertilizer burns out the soil organic matter.” Fertilizer can actually increase soil organic matter. The biggest factor in reducing soil organic matter is tillage. If you cultivate the soil, you’ll decrease that soil’s active organic matter fraction. There’s an association here, since most tillage agriculture involves the application of fertilizer, but association does not prove causation. If you keep the soil covered with long-term, perennial grass-clover pasture you will increase the soil’s organic matter content – regardless of how you fertilize it. In yet another example, the reporter in a news story examining grass finished beef stated that since the grass the cows were eating was “rich in healthy fat,” the meat was higher in omega 3 fatty acids than grain finished beef. Studies have shown that beef from grass finished cattle does have a lower omega 6 to omega 3 ratio, but the actual amount of omega 3 fatty acids may be about the same in both (only 13 milligrams more omega 3 per 3 ounce (85.5 gram) cooked portion). 1 Pasture herbage, by the way, is low-fat – usually less than 5% ether extract (“crude fat”). I must admit, it’s hard for me to read authors or listen to speakers who make these kinds of statements. If those who carry the message of low carb / paleo / primal way of life to the agricultural community repeat these examples of the new conventional wisdom, the danger is that our farmers and ranchers may not be able to listen to us, either.

When it comes to human health assertions for grass fed and finished animal products, I’m afraid the conversation is thoroughly tainted by the old conventional wisdom. Gary Taubes has emphasized the critical role that brutal criticism plays in a healthy science. New ideas are subjected to harsh critique from one’s peers. Without this type of internal review, false ideas can contaminate the science – not just the discipline they come from, but many others as well. The realm of human nutrition hasn’t had this kind of healthy critique for more than 50 years, and the contagion of its flawed reasoning and theories has spread widely. Most research papers regarding grass based animal products contain statements that summarize either the lipid hypothesis or the calories-in/calories-out hypothesis, or both. The other day I received a newsletter from a local grass finished meat supplier which, naturally enough, listed several statements meant to describe the benefits of grass finished over grain finished beef. Here are their points, along with my comments:

"Grass fed beef has about the same amount of fat as skinless chicken and wild game, adding beef to the list of food that actually could lower your LDL cholesterol."

Grass Finished Beef, NOT Low Fat!

That grass-finished beef is low fat may be true (although there are variations due to breed, etc., that make this a less-than universally true statement), but that’s only a good thing if you believe the lipid hypothesis. The truth is that the fatty acids in beef, either grass or grain finished, will actually improve your blood lipid profile! In general beef fat is 50 percent saturated fatty acids (one third of which is stearic fatty acid, which our bodies convert to oleic acid 2 – the primary fatty acid in olive oil), 42 percent monounsaturated fatty acids (90% of which is oleic acid), and 4 percent polyunsaturated fatty acids. 3 The science has shown that, in fact, eating beef tallow instead of carbohydrates would improve your blood lipid profile and lower your Coronary Heart Disease risk! [58 percent of the fat in beef tallow will improve your LDL:HDL cholesterol ratio. The remaining 42 percent will raise LDL cholesterol, but will also raise HDL cholesterol and will have an insignificant effect on the total cholesterol:HDL ratio.] 4

What's the "Heart-Healthy" Portion of this Meal?

"Assuming you eat a typical amount of beef, in a year, by switching to Grass fed beef you could save 18,000 calories a year. Which means if you change nothing else in your diet you could lose 6 pounds a year just by changing where your beef comes from."

This is an attempt to apply the failed calories-in vs. calories-out theory of obesity. For a detailed discussion of why this theory is not correct, please see Gary Taubes’ blog post The Inanity of Overeating and his newest book, Why We Get Fat, And What to Do About It.

"4o% of American’s don’t get enough Omega-3 fatty acids, the “good fat”. Not only are they important to the brain, they also play a role in every cell and system in the body. By keeping your brain healthy you are less likely to suffer from depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder and Alzheimer’s. “Good fats” are linked to lowering blood pressure, reducing heart attacks, fighting depression and reducing cancer."

The phrase “good fats” belies the lingering taint of lipophobia. Dietary fat, saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease or any other chronic “disease of civilization.” 5 (see Grass and Cancer). Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization. 6 Diets low in carbohydrate are necessarily high in fat, typically animal fat. So, all animal fats have been “linked” to these improvements in health. In addition, beef, grass-finished or grain-finished, is a relatively poor source of omega 3 fatty acids when compared to oily fish, like wild-caught salmon.

"Omega-6 fatty acids are vital for human health. The bad news is; a diet too rich in these Omega 6’s had been linked to obesity, diabetes, immune system disorders and cancer! In order to function well our bodies require a balance between Omega-3 & Omega-6 fatty acids. Ideally 1:1 is the best ratio, grass fed beef is 2:1, while feed lot (grain fed, store bought) beef has a ratio of over 20:1. Huge difference!"

Yes, there is a huge difference between 1:1 and 20:1. That’s a true statement. But as shown by Duckett, et al., 7 the omega 6 to omega 3 ratio in grain-finished beef can be as low as 4:1. I’ve seen the 20:1 figure cited as the ratio of the typical American diet as a whole, so it appears they got these figures confused. As I’ve discussed previously (What’s the Limiting Factor?), just how important would this difference be if dietary carbohydrates are not restricted? How likely would someone be to realize any benefit?

"5 times more CLA is found in meat raised on grass. CLA can help prevent cancer and reduce cancer-cell growth."

As stated previously, the most likely dietary cause of cancer is refined carbohydrates. Restricting those while eating beef, regardless of how it was finished, is quite likely to prevent cancer (see Grass and Cancer). Coupled with appropriate supplementation of vitamin D, the impact is likely to be far in excess of that suggested by the conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) research.

"The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has noted that grass-fed beef has eight times more vitamin B12, six times more zinc and two and a half times more iron than skinless chicken breast."

This is true of beef, regardless of how it’s finished! 8

Until the flawed and failed lipid hypothesis of heart disease and the calories-in/calories-out hypothesis of obesity are fully discarded, we won’t make meaningful progress against the epidemic of chronic illnesses we face today. That awareness, coupled with the acceptance of the fundamental requirement for animal products for optimal human health, will permit us to have a meaningful discussion about the health benefits of grass fed and finished animal products. Until then, we must guard against creating a new conventional wisdom.

References

1 S. K. Duckett, J. P. S. Neel, J. P. Fontenot, and W. M. Clapham. 2009. “Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: III. Tissue proximate, fatty acid, vitamin, and cholesterol content.” Journal of Animal Science 2009.87:2961-2970.

2 Grundy, S. M. 1994. “Influence of Stearic Acid on Cholesterol Metabolism Relative to Other Long-Chain Fatty Acids.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Dec.; 60(6 suppl.):986S-90S

3 USDA. 2010. Composition of Foods Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Release 23 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

4 Taubes, Gary. 2008. Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease. Anchor Books. New York, NY. pp 168-169

5 Ibid p 454

6 Ibid

7 S. K. Duckett, J. P. S. Neel, J. P. Fontenot, and W. M. Clapham. 2009. “Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: III. Tissue proximate, fatty acid, vitamin, and cholesterol content.” Journal of Animal Science 2009.87:2961-2970.

8 USDA. 2010. Composition of Foods Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Release 23 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ [A comparison of “Beef, round, outside round, bottom round, steak, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0” fat, all grades, cooked, grilled” with “Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted.”]

What is Grass Based Health?

2011-02-01T07:16:00.000-08:00

Animals make us human.

Temple Grandin

. . . the Andamanese believe it is the possession of fire that makes human beings what they are and distinguishes them from animals.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1922.

The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1

So, what does barbecue make us?

With his new opposing thumb and his king-sized cranium,

Man sallied forth with grace and savoir faire.

With Promethian desire he soon discovered fire,

And arson but a single step from there.

The wheel and gasoline, to the full-sized limousine,

Music, art and law are but a few,

But name what can compare to the artistry so rare of

the sparerib that has met the barbecue.

from The Big Band Theory. Mark Graham.2

I recently had the opportunity to attend the 7^th Annual Cattlemen’s Workshop in La Grande, Oregon. It was a wonderful opportunity to connect with the region’s beef industry and learn from the ranchers, industry and University folks who were there. One lesson I learned is that “Grass Based Health” means something to everyone, but it may not mean the same thing to everyone. So I thought it was time to define what I mean by the phrase.

Grass Based Health is the concept that pasture-based livestock production systems are better for the animals, better for the farmers and ranchers, better for the land, and better for the communities they are a part of than the alternative livestock production systems. I’ll be covering all of these topics in future posts. But the fundamental principle of Grass Based Health is that our diet ought to be grass based, not grain based. Understanding and accepting this premise then forces the consideration, and re-consideration, of many other topics as well.

It’s obvious (or it ought to be!) that we lack the herbivores’ specialized ingestive and digestive anatomy that permits them to utilize cellulose. We depend on various animals to convert cellulose, the most common organic compound on Earth[3], into animal fat and high quality, complete protein. The majority of feed units consumed by all domestic livestock (beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs and poultry, sheep and goats, horses and mules, and “other”) in the US in 1970 came from forage (54.4% of all feed units, 36.1 and 18.3 percent from pastured and harvested forage, respectively).[4] I’ll simplistically refer to all forage as “grass” from now on. A grain-finished steer spends most of his life eating grass, and is only fed grain as a portion of its diet during the finishing phase. Even then, its ration still contains grass. So, even today meat and dairy products can be described as “grass based.” I do believe that there is vast room for improving the production and utilization of grass in pasture-based production systems, and I’ll address that in future posts.

Terms like “grass-fed,” “free-range,” “pastured,” and “organic” are all used to market food today. Quantitative and qualitative differences have been determined between grass-finished and grain-finished meats. Similar differences have been determined between the milk from dairy cows grazing pasture compared to those housed in confinement systems. Just how important are these differences? Future posts will deal with this subject, too. I am concerned, however, that the claims some make for these products are over-stated. Without addressing the biggest insult to human health – an oversupply of readily digestible refined carbohydrates – is the consumer likely to realize any of these benefits? (see What's the Limiting Factor?)

It is beyond dispute that the “natural” diet of mankind is one that is much higher in animal products and much lower in carbohydrate than what our current “experts” advise us to eat. The archeological evidence provided in the fossil record and the testimony of anthropologists concerning various hunter-gatherer cultures provides significant evidence regarding our ancestor’s diet. The ancients who 19,000 years ago produced the awe-inspiring Lascaux cave paintings in present-day southwest France were paying homage to what gave them sustenance – the auroch, the ancestor of our modern European cattle.

Loren Cordain (2000) published an analysis of the diets of hunter-gatherer populations whose diets had been assessed by anthropologists.[5] One in every five of these 229 populations subsisted on almost entirely hunting or fishing. More than 85 percent of their calories came from meat or fish, with some groups thriving entirely on meat and fish. Only 14 percent of these groups got more than half their calories from plant foods. Not a single one of these populations was exclusively vegetarian.

Today we understand the need to avoid obesity and the chronic diseases that are associated with being overweight. The “experts” tell us that we can accomplish these goals by eating less and exercising more, and by eating diets that are low in fat and high in carbohydrates. Animal products must be restricted, according to this advice. In response to the expert’s recommendations, as published in the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, the American caloric intake averages 15% from protein, 33% from fat, and the balance from carbohydrates. In contrast, Cordain’s hunter-gatherers’ diets were high to very high in protein (19 to 35 percent of calories) and high to very high in fat (28 to 58 percent of calories). Several of these populations obtained as much as 80 percent of their calories from fat.

There is an abundance of evidence documenting the oft-repeated experience of isolated populations who exhibited none of the various “western diseases” until the introduction of sugar and white flour to their diets (see Grass and Cancer, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Why we Get Fat and What to Do About It, among other sources). The scientific research and observational data so strongly supports the fattening carbohydrate hypothesis and explains the phenomenon of metabolic syndrome that all but those with a vested interest ought to be convinced that the lipid hypothesis should never have been adopted as the basis of public health policy in this country, or anywhere else. And this flawed “conventional wisdom” about weight loss and what constitutes a healthy diet has contaminated all of science. Not just nutrition and human health, but disciplines as seemingly unrelated as soil conservation. I’ll write about that in the future, too.

At the end of the introduction to his newest book, Gary Taubes writes:[6]

In the more than six decades since the end of the Second World War, when this question of what causes us to fatten – calories or carbohydrates - has been argued, it has often seemed like a religious issue rather than a scientific one. So many different belief systems enter into the question of what constitutes a healthy diet that the scientific question – why do we get fat” – has gotten lost along the way. It’s been overshadowed by ethical, moral, and sociological considerations that are valid in themselves and certainly worth discussing but have nothing to do with the science itself and arguably no place in a scientific inquiry.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets typically (if not, perhaps, ideally) replace the carbohydrates in the diet with large or at least larger portions of animal products – beginning with eggs for breakfast and moving to meat, fish, or fowl for lunch and dinner. The implications of that are proper to debate. Isn’t our dependence on animal products already bad for the environment, and won’t it just get worse? Isn’t livestock production a major contributor to global warming, water shortages, and pollution? When thinking about a healthy diet, shouldn’t we think about what’s good for the planet as well as what’s good for us? Do we have a right to kill animals for our food or put them to work for us in producing it? Isn’t the only morally and ethically defensible lifestyle a vegetarian one or even a vegan one?

These are all important questions that need to be addressed, as individuals and as a society. But they have no place in the scientific and medical discussion of why we get fat.

It is understandable that Taubes would limit his argument, especially in this book which was envisioned as a simplified and focused discussion of the causes and treatment of obesity. Taubes is to be commended for acknowledging the broader ramifications of this subject and stating that, while he’s aware of these issues he would not address them. But there’s an implication in his statement that I’d like to dispute.

I believe that we can address, scientifically, the questions regarding the impacts of animal agriculture on “the environment,” including the issues of anthropogenic global climate change (“global warming”), water quality and water quantity. The effort will show that this science is as muddled as Taubes found the disciplines of diet, nutrition and human health to be. Some of this muddle is the result of dietary dogma contaminating the discussion. If you believe that eating animal products is bad for you, it’s easy to imagine that belief impacting your perception of environmental issues. If your environmental beliefs are informed by the incorrect 18^th and 19^th century image of pre-Columbian North America as an “unspoiled wilderness,” then activities by man to transform the environment are necessarily seen as degradation. If you’ve never thought of the impacts of field-crop agriculture and horticulture, it might be possible to remain ignorant of the fact that greater soil erosion occurs in annual cropping systems that in perennial pasture-based animal production systems. Pasture-based livestock production systems protect surface and ground water quality. Credible science supports the role of well-managed animal agriculture in not only protecting but actually improving the environment. Future posts will discuss these issues. This, too, is what I mean by Grass Based Health.

In the Introduction to his book, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie makes the following statement:[7]

I am not overly concerned with questions of dietary health, nor do I take any interest in the diet and dentition of our remote ancestors.

Only someone not convinced of the fundamental requirement for animal fat and protein in the human diet could label meat an “extravagance!” Fairlie’s book is one of many I’m working my way through. His book apparently is having an impact. Folks who’ve been committed to vegetarianism are being swayed by his argument that animal products can be produced in ways that are sustainable. Glad to hear it. I remember being told almost twenty years ago that animal agriculture had no place in “sustainable agriculture.” “Organic” and “sustainable” were once synonymous with vegetarian.

My initial arguments with Fairlie’s thesis are that:

The vast majority of the earth’s surface is best suited for producing grass for grazing.
A significant portion of the “grain” that is fed to livestock are by-products like brewer’s grains and oil meal. These are not suitable for humans, and not utilizing them as livestock feeds would increase the cost of the primary products.
The field and horticulture crops are the “extravagance,” not the animal products. And they are far from “benign.” Soil loss through erosion and soil organic matter depletion, and water quality degradation, fossil fuel use, petrochemical inputs, wildlife impact – all of these are greater in annual cropping situations than in perennial pasture-based livestock production systems. And that list does not include the impact these crops have on the human health and the cost of treating the resulting diseases.

Consider diabetes: Diabetes is one of the western diseases, now understood to be part of metabolic syndrome. The US population today is approximately 312 million people, 76.9% of whom are adults (approximately 240 million). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 105 million adults in the US have diabetes or prediabetes (26 million with diabetes, 79 million with prediabetes), as diagnosed with hemoglobin A1c.[8] Thus diabetic and pre-diabetic adults represent 44% of the US adult population. The increase in those with pre-diabetes, now equal to 1 in 3 US adults, represents a 39 % increase since 2008. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called benign! The CDC estimates the direct and indirect costs of diabetes at $179 billion annually. The recommended plant-based diet can hardly be called sustainable, either.

I sometimes hear those in the low-carb / Primal / Paleo community refer to “agriculture” negatively. It is important to remember that the farmers and ranchers – the people who actually steward natural resources to produce our food - have been taken in by the same official dietary guidelines as the rest of us. They are challenged by the same chronic health problems the rest of us face. They need to hear this alternative to the conventional wisdom. The average age of farmers in the US is just over 57 years.[9] Sustainability implies longevity, but the intergenerational transition of the current production models have been difficult to achieve. Is there an alternative? There can be no sustainability without profit. In western Oregon, traditional dairies are finding it difficult to break even while pasture-based dairies are making a profit. Dairymen from Europe and New Zealand have been looking at the potential for grass-based dairying in the US. Some have done more than just look. Americans spend less, as a percent of their income, on food than any other industrial country. And we spend more on medical care. We can pay our farmers or we can pay our doctors. Payin’ our doctors hasn’t worked out all that well. That, too, is what Grass Based Health is about.

Finally, if meaningful change is going to happen in our nutrition policies and all that they influence it will have to begin at the grass roots. Individuals will have to learn on their own what we should have been taught since the 1960s. They will have to apply this information to their own lives and obtain the thoroughly predictable results – improved health and weight loss. They will then pass the word along to their families and friends, some of whom will listen and adopt this appropriate way of eating and living. And so it will spread until we reach the tipping point. A grass roots movement. But "Grass Roots Health” was already taken (and a worthwhile effort that is, too, regarding the role of vitamin D in preventing chronic diseases!).

So now you know I called this blog “Grass Based Health,” what I mean by that phrase, and some of what I’ll be writing about in future posts.

[1] From Wrangham, R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York, NY

[2] Mark Graham. 1979 in The Mark Graham Songbook: Twenty-Five Originals From the Forked-Tongue Demon. Mark Graham. 1991.

[3] Cellulose. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[4] Meath, M. E., D. S. Metcalfe, R. F. Barnes. 1973. Forages; The Science of Grassland Agriculture. The Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

[5] Cordain, L., J. B. Miller, S. B. Eaton, N. Mann, S. H. Holt, and J. D. Speth. 2000. “Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Mar;71(3):682-92.

[6] Taubes, G. 2011. “Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It.” 2011. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. pp 11-12

[7] Fairlie, S. 2010. “Meat: A Benign Extravagance” Chelsea Green Publishing Co.

[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes and Prediabetes in the United States 2011. Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[9] http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Operators/Characterists/07-M124-RGBChor-largetext.pdf

Try, Try Again

2011-01-16T16:22:00.000-08:00

Earlier posts:
Swine and Mankind - The satiating power of dietary fat, mankind’s long history with swine, and the changes made to swine through genetic selection and some implications for humans fighting excess fat.
Lard, Glorious Lard – The uses and benefits of lard.

*********************************************************************

One definition of “try” is to melt or render. The Yankee innovation that permitted the formation of the Yankee whaling industry was figuring out how to move the “try works” from shore-based installations to shipboard ones.

Here’s the process I use to render our lard and beef tallow:

Pork fat from Afton Field Farm

Shred the frozen pork fat in a food processor. (During my first attempt at rendering lard I just cut the fat into chunks, but shredding produces a better yield, in much less time, and the resulting lard is whiter.)

Place the shredded fat in a heavy pan on medium heat.

Our dogs gave us this enameled cast iron Dutch oven for Christmas '09. Good dogs!

Since the fat is shredded, it doesn’t take very long to render (note the time on the stove clock).

Seven minutes later, a significant amount of melting ...

Five more minutes ...

Seventeen minutes later, almost completely rendered.

Once the bubbling has somewhat subsided (about 30 minutes), strain the fat through cheesecloth to remove the cracklins.

Close-up. Almost done.
The yield of rendered fat was almost 85 percent of the starting shredded fat weight.

Pour the fat into loaf pans and allow to cool and solidify at room temperature. Once cooled, place the pans in the refrigerator to fully harden. Once fully hardened, I remove the lard from the loaf pan, wrap in wax paper, put it in a plastic bag, and freeze it.

I use a 1-to-1 mix of lard and tallow for our pemmican and we use lard as a cooking fat, but most of that comes from cooking side pork (the uncured part of the pig that's made into bacon).

Enjoy your fat!

Lard, Glorious Lard!

2011-01-16T16:18:00.000-08:00

Earlier post: Swine and Mankind - The satiating power of dietary fat, mankind’s long history with swine, and the changes made to swine through genetic selection and some implications for humans fighting excess fat.

*****************************************************************

During this country’s pioneer days the hog was the principal source of fat for the diet and lard was widely used for other purposes in everyday life. Two industries are responsible for displacing lard - vegetable oil processing and petroleum.

Industrial processes were developed in the first half of the 20th century to extract, purify, and solidify various vegetable oils (hydrogenation). This created the vegetable-shortening industry. These processes made available vast sources of cheap oils. These could be converted into a texture that made them acceptable as shortening materials. All that was needed was a public relations campaign to convince the American public that these new industrial products were good for them. Petroleum products directly replaced lard as fuels for illumination and as lubricants. Products of the growing petrochemical industry eliminated many other uses of lard.

“Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food.”

Albert Bartlett

Today most hog producers use some type of confinement production. One of the most striking features of the U.S. hog industry has been the rapid shift to fewer and larger operations, associated with technological change and evolving economic relationships between producers, packers, and consumers. Over the past 15 years, the number of farms with hogs has declined by over 70 percent, as individual enterprises have grown larger. These large operations specialize in a single phase of production, replacing the farrow-to-finish operations that performed all phases of production. The use of production contracts has increased. Operations producing under contract are larger than independent operations and are more likely to specialize in a single phase of production. The swine industry is following the poultry industry model of vertical integration.1

Grass-based agriculture minimizes the use of petroleum (and other inputs) in the conversion of sunlight into high quality protein and fat.

I’m not in any way attempting to romanticize a time when life was challenging beyond our ability to imagine. I’ve stood in old graveyards, looking at the markers in the family plot of a distant relative, and experienced the growing sorrow of realizing that this family buried 5 children in the span of a month. Infectious diseases were a significant threat then. No more. Now we die slowly from the chronic western diseases. Nor am I saying that these folks were fine stewards of the natural resources under their management. For the most part these farmers lacked any understanding of preserving, let alone improving, soil fertility. The principles of soil conservation were not known, let alone practiced. The natural resources in settled areas were exploited and then folks moved on - until we ran out of new areas to settle. The settlement of the North American Great Plains was an exercise in trying to force human will upon the environment, instead of attempting to find what the environment would support. But hind sight is always 20/20. I wonder what folks 200 years from now will think of our current practices and attitudes?

When the majority of Americans lived on homesteads and small farms, folks needed to produce what they required, or do without. Theirs were not the industrial farms of today – specializing in the production of single crops or animals. These were integrated animal and cropping enterprises. And the pig was a critical part of these systems. Known as “the mortgage lifter,” hogs produced meat, fat and income from pasture and farm wastes. When the price of grain was low, a farmer could increase it’s value by feeding it to pigs which could be sold for a greater profit. And pork could be shipped to market at lower cost and with greater ease than grain. During a time when life did not depend on petroleum, it might well be said that it depended on the hog. Consider the many uses of lard: sanitation; extermination, illumination, lubrication, fabrication, preservation, medication, nutrition, and transportation. (How’s that for porcine alliteration?)

Sanitation – Soap for washing bodies and clothes was made from lard and lye. The lye was made by pouring rainwater through wood ashes. 2

Extermination – Okay, this one’s a LITTLE scary. “For Bed Bug extermination none need a second trial after mixing lard with red precipitate put on with a feather wherever they are and leave it on.” 4 I bet! Red precipitate is mercuric oxide (HgO)! Just goes to show that the old folks didn’t always have the best information ...

Illumination – Lard was an alternative to the more expensive whale oil. Special lard lamps were available. Pure lard is too soft for use as candles, but a spoonful could serve as fuel for a metal dish lamp called a “crusie,” but these little lamps didn’t throw much light. For better light, the pith from cattail (Typha latifolia) stalks could be dipped in lard and burned. Called rushlights, they produced more smoke and less light that whale oil, but it was less expensive and could be “homemade.”2

Lubrication – Pine tar mixed with lard produced wagon axle grease. Lard was also used as bullet lube.

Fabrication – A liquid can be separated from lard by pressing it. This substance is called olein or lard oil. It is still used in blacksmithing and machining operations to lubricate cutting tools.

Preservation – Lean meat can be preserved by drying. But fat cannot. So dried meat, or jerky, was ground or pounded, and then combined with an equal weight of melted fat to produce pemmican (an earlier post “The Original North American Trail Food”). Confit is a common practice in traditional French cooking. Various kinds of meat or poultry can be cooked in their own fat, and then allowed to cool. The solidified fat will seal the storage vessel and prevent spoilage. A version was practiced on the American frontier, where pieces of ham were stored in lard. My Italian-American father-in-law remembers his family storing sausages in lard.

Medication – The bark of the elderberry (Sambucus sp.) would be simmered in lard to make an ointment to treat “ulcers, boils, carbuncles, burns, and such lesser irritations as abrasions, chafing, rashes, blistering, and so forth.” 3 Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) was a very common ingredient in salves made from lard. 4

Next-to-last, but not least, Nutrition – Until the late 1920’s lard was the primary cooking fat in the US, when it began to be replaced by various vegetable oils and shortenings. This trend accelerated, of course, with the official dietary instruction to limit our consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol. The annual per capita consumption of lard has plummeted from 14.2 pounds in 1940 to 1.7 pounds in 1993. 5

We’ve been told to limit our intake of saturated fat, and the terms “saturated fat” and “animal fat” are often treated as if they’re synonymous. But animal fat is a mixture of different fatty acids. These mixtures differ between animal species and can be influenced by production practices. In general lard is:

45 percent monounsaturated fatty acids, 91% of which is oleic acid, the principle fatty acid in olive oil
39 percent saturated fatty acids, but more than one third of that is stearic fatty acid, which will increase HDL cholesterol while having no effect on LDL. (Stearic acid is metabolized in the body to oleic acid).
And 11 percent polyunsaturated fatty acids, which lowers LDL cholesterol but has no meaningful effect on HDL.

(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009))

In sum, 66 percent of the fat in lard will improve the relative levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol. The remaining 34 percent will raise LDL cholesterol, but will also raise HDL cholesterol and will have an insignificant effect, if any, on the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL.

Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Transportation – I’ve asked some folks involved in researching bio-fuel production from crops why we aren’t looking at small scale production of bio-fuel from animal fat for on-farm use. If the animals weren’t eating human-utilizable feed, it would seem to make far more sense than expending diesel fuel to grow and harvest an oilseed crop, for bio-fuel. Maybe I’m missing something …

Petroleum and petroleum-based products may have replaced lard, but lard's day may come again!

Next post: Try, Try Again (How to render lard and tallow)

References
1. USDA Economic Research Service. Briefing Rooms. Hogs. Background.
2. Greenwood, B. and H Collins. A Pioneer Sampler: The Daily Life of a Pioneer Family in 1840.
3. Survival Wisdom & Know How: Everything You Need to Know to Thrive in the Wilderness p. 131
4. Good Housekeeping, vol 7. page 186.
5. Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker. 1997. Swine Science. Interstate Publishers, Inc. p 421.

6. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009)

Swine and Mankind

2011-01-15T21:31:00.000-08:00

Nancy and I have been enjoying some locally-produced, hazelnut-finished, red wattle pork. We purchased it from Heritage Farms Northwest. The oil in the hazelnuts results in a pork fat that’s significantly softer than other pork, indicating a lower saturated fat content. The red wattle is a relatively rare breed of hog, and definitely NOT a producer of “the other white meat.” Last Sunday we enjoyed a breakfast of scrambled eggs with some diced grilled pork chop (including the thick layer of fat, of course!) and caramelized onions. Very rich. This one meal carried us both until well past our usual dinner time. Each of us finally ate something later that evening, more because we felt it was time than feeling all that hungry. Fat satisfies. Fat “sticks to your ribs.” Carbohydrates do not satisfy. The sensation of hunger returns more quickly on carbohydrate-based diets than on fat-based ones. Swine have been the source of dietary fat and protein for some time.

Archaeological evidence indicates that swine were first domesticated about 9000 BCE in the East Indies and southeastern Asia. Swine have been especially amenable to human selection. Many different breeds have been developed over the years. Interestingly, pigs can change back just as easily. When given the opportunity, pigs promptly revert within only a few generations to a wild or feral state in which they acquire the body form and characteristics of their wild progenitors many generations removed.

Swine were introduced to North America by Hernando De Soto in 1539. Their importance to the subsequent history of this continent (and the rest of the world) is hard to over-state. Beginning with their unforeseeable role as a vector for zoonotic diseases (diseases transmissible from animals to humans) that decimated the native American population, continuing through their subsequent role in sustaining the mostly-rural population of the developing nation, and ultimately forming the foundation of Midwestern US agriculture. And the pig’s importance is not limited to North America, which is home to less than 12% of the world’s hogs.

“World distribution of swine, by major areas. (Based on estimates from the FAO Production Yearbook, FAO/UN, Rome, Italy, 1994, pp. 192-194, Table 90).” From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

When one compares the modern pig with its ancestor, the European wild boar, it is obvious how much “gentic manipulation” has taken place! Not through some high-tech approach, obviously, but by a long process of selecting for desirable traits and against negative ones. Disposition would be an obvious criteria!

The European wild boar. From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

But body structure and the degree of “finish” or fat would be others. Through the 19th century, lard-type hogs were favored because of the value of lard. This is reflected in the type of animal that was preferred in the livestock show-rings of that era.

“A Poland China gilt of the chuffy type. Small, refined animals of this type dominated the American show-ring from 1890-1919.” From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

But tastes changed and soon a taller animal was preferred. Fashion is fickle in the breed ring as well as on the designers' runways. It's interesting to note that this trend precedes the low-fat-is-the-healthy-diet message of the last half of the 20th century. Data from 1929 indicated that one average hog carcass provided enough meat for two people for a year, but enough for three people for a year. This over-production of lard was a significant problem, depressing hog prices.

“A Poland China boar pig of the rangy type. Long legged, weak loined, “cat hammed” animals of this type dominated the American show-ring from 1915-1925.” From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

Today’s animal has been selected to produce a maximum of lean meat with even less fat, in part as a response to the market’s demands (which, of coarse, is responding the “conventional wisdom” that animal fat is bad for us).

“1994 World Expo top placing Poland China boar.” From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

For anyone who doubts that genetics can make some constitutionally lean and others constitutionally heavy, look at the differences that genetics can play in the leanness of swine.

“Breeding made the difference! The hogs received the same ration and were slaughtered at the same weight. Not the difference in the amount of lean meat, with the hog on the left being superior.” From Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker.

Consider the implications for humans! Some of us, due to our genetic inheritance, will tend to be leaner than others. Biology isn't fair. And an impaired metabolism may mean that we will carry more fat than if we had not incurred this metabolic damage. What we need to understand is what we must do to be as lean as we're capable of being.

Finally, I’ve heard that these lean hogs have to be raised in confinement with some degree of climate control because their lack of fat makes them susceptible to heat and cold. If we're going to raise livestock, we need to be aware of the conditions the various breeds were selected for.We'll need to choose breeds that match our conditions and management goals.

Next posts:
Lard, Glorious Lard! (the uses and benefits of lard)
Try, Try Again (rendering lard at home)

Reference
Ensminger, M.E. and R.O. Parker. 1997. Swine Science. Interstate Publishers, Inc.

Reflection and Anticipation

2011-01-01T13:39:00.000-08:00

I’m reflecting on the passing year’s events and looking forward to the new year’s possibilities. Once again, I’m not all that unique!

I’m grateful for the opportunities I’ve been given to speak about this topic I call “Grass Based Health,” and the chance to get reconnected with agriculture. This involved relearning information that I hadn’t utilized for more than fifteen years, and learning a great deal of new-to-me information. It also meant that I got to re-connect with a number of folks, while making many new acquaintances.

I started this blog last spring, shortly before I travelled to Seattle to attend a joint meeting of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and the Metabolism Society. Listening to presentations by Jacqueline Eberstein, Dr. Richard Feinman, Dr. Stephen Finney, Gary Taubes, Dr. Mary Vernon, Dr. Jay Wortman, and others was an amazing opportunity to learn from the experts in carbohydrate restriction. But speaking with several of the bariatric practitioners, including several physicians, convinced me that this forage agronomist can contribute in this arena! And the non-presenting folks who attended –Laura Dolson, Drs. Michael R. and Mary Dan Eades, Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, Adele Hite, Jimmy Moore, Dr. Eric Westman, and so many more – reinforced that sense. Thanks to Jimmy, I’ve got a photo of one memorable dinner with the “Low Carb All-Stars.”

Photo by Jimmy Moore

Despite the excitement I felt, I neglected this blog for most of last year. One resolution I’ve made for 2011 is to post at least twice a month, on the first and fifteenth. Let’s see how well I do at meeting that goal!

Speaking of photos and goals, several folks mentioned that they’d like to see a “today” picture to compare with the one I’ve used in my recent presentations and The Beginning of My Journey post, which was taken at Christmas of 2007. So here you go:

Christmas 2007

Christmas, 2010 - Almost 50 pounds lighter!

I recently attended a Continuing Medical Education lecture on carbohydrate restriction and metabolic syndrome at our local hospital. Dr. Jason Phillips did well presenting the material to a difficult-to-reach audience. One member of the audience made a comment about the effectiveness of "diet." As I remember, he said:

“A ‘diet’ is defined as successful if the patient achieves a 10% body weight loss and maintains it for 1 year. By this definition, the success rate of ‘diet’ is 15%, and essentially 0 at 5 years. If ‘diet’ were a medical procedure, it would be labeled malpractice. If ‘diet’ were a medication, it would not be prescribed.”

Knowing that there are so many people who want to improve their health this coming year, but who won’t achieve their goal because they’ve been given the wrong information, makes me very glad that I was introduced to the effective solutions.

I’m looking forward to whatever comes in the new year. The Ancestral Health Symposium in August will be a highlight, I’m sure. I hope to be presenting a poster there, but just getting a chance to listen to those presenters already identified would make it worthwhile. I’m close to achieving my personal goals for weight, health and fitness. The achievement of many other goals seems quite possible, if a bit challenging.

Best wishes from Nancy and I for your coming New Year! May you enjoy your journey at least as much as we’re enjoying ours!!

Breakfast Casserole

2010-12-21T06:49:00.000-08:00

Making breakfast during the work week can be a challenge for me, time-wise. Sometimes it’s a challenge effort-wise, too! One solution is this breakfast casserole. This is the dairy-free version I make so that both Nancy and I can enjoy it.

1 lb bulk pork sausage (can be either breakfast or Italian)

1 lb ground pork

1 10 ounce package of frozen chopped spinach, thawed and squeezed as dry as possible

8 extra large eggs

½ cup So Delicious coconut milk beverage

Preheat oven to 350° F

Brown the meat.

Spray 8.5”x11” baking pan with olive oil (could be any acceptable oil, but we’re avoiding canola and soy, right?)

With a slotted spoon, transfer from frying pan to baking pan.

Evenly spread the spinach over the meat.

Beat the eggs, add the coconut milk and combine. Pour evenly over the spinach layer.

Bake for 30 minutes.

Test for doneness with by inserting a knife. If it comes out clean, it’s done!

Don’t be worried about the lovely fat bubblin’ around the edges (and even on the top) of the casserole. It will recede as it cools. And fat is the basis of our diet, right? If it seems too much for you, you can drain the browned meat in a colander (instead of using the slotted spoon) to remove more fat.

Once cold, we cut this into 8 servings. It reheats perfectly in the microwave. I add 1 ounce of raw cheddar cheese. Sometimes I garnish with some salsa. This breakfast keeps me going until after noon.

Variations:

If dairy sensitivities are not a concern, you can substitute 1 cup of ½ & ½ or heavy cream for the coconut milk beverage. And you could throw some cheese on top of the spinach layer, too!

How about a bacon cheeseburger version? Instead of the pork, use two pounds of ground beef. Cook and crumple a package of bacon and add it as an additional layer.

Enjoy!