Why the Herdsman Matters

An online continuation of the “Ground to Defend” commentary in American Cowboy magazine.

By Jesse Mullins, Jr.

Neighbor, I’m going to assume that you’ve come to this page having first read my commentary in the September/October ’07 issue of the magazine. And if that is the case, then let me say that what follows here will mostly flow from that. If you’ve not seen that article, then what I have to say here might not make sense, or might not make as much sense.

One other note: I will apologize in advance if you read material here in this discussion and later some of this material shows up in print in an upcoming issue. I don’t want to repeat myself, but I have to assume that only a portion, at most, of our readership will come here to read more, and if I state something here that seems important to share in a followup article in the print version of the magazine, it might be necessary to recycle it there.

That said, there are matters that ought be brought up here, in regard to positions we’ve taken in the print article.

I realize that one angle presented in the article could draw some dissent, and that angle is the argument that the ranching/grazing industry could stand to benefit if it distances itself from the cattle feedlot/fattening industry. I know that there will be some who may find this strategy objectionable. The reasons are not hard to imagine. One objection could be that the two industries are so intertwined and inseparable that they cannot be regarded as independent entities. Another is that the consuming public wants fattened beef and is not at all interested in grassfat beef. To some, the idea of trying to push grassfat beef on a public that is accustomed to fattier, more tender, feedlot-finished beef is an idea that has no chance.

Such an objector might reject it because he or she cannot envision it ever succeeding, or they might reject it for more directly personal reasons, one being their own personal tastes in beef. Yet another objection could be one of market forces: there could be skepticism that the two sides—ranching and grain-feeding—would ever permit such a distinction to develop. Surely the feedlot industry would have stronger objections than the ranching industry, for the ranching industry would have more to gain from this than would the feedlot industry. But there may be some who would feel that the ranching industry itself would have objections, not wanting to alienate its downstream partner.

And none of this is to say that the whole idea could ever develop, anyway. Merely mentioning it in a magazine is not the same as causing it to be a reality. But if ideas cannot at least get a hearing, then we can never be sure that all the best choices for a solution are on the table. And it is in that spirit that we have opened up this topic.

As for the possible objections, some counter-arguments:

It’s true that the grazing industry and the feedlot industry are closely related and very sensitive to one another. It hardly seems possible that there would ever come a day when the buying public turns down the prospect of grainfed beef. The image of “killing the fatted calf” goes back to Bible times and surely much further than that, and if a practice has been around for millennia there is not much use in suggesting that it ought totally be dispensed with. Nor is there much logic or likelihood in it.

There will always be a market for fattened beef, no matter how much it might or might not be discouraged (from whatever quarters), just as there will always be a market for cigarettes no matter how much Congress inveighs against the tobacco companies. The root resistance arises from the end-user, not the provider. It is the tobacco user who will ensure that tobacco does not disappear from the landscape. So it would be for fat beef, even if the environmentalists did their worst in stamping it out, even if the vegetarians gave their all toward converting the world to vegetarianism.

So there are no dangers of grain-fed beef ever completely disappearing from the meat counters of the nation. That being so, why even bring this matter up? One reason is that not all changes have to be absolute changes for good to result. Even incremental changes can have a positive effect. If the public is nudged in a direction that is beneficial to its collective health and well-being, and at the same time is helped incrementally toward a practice that can be good for the environment and perhaps even for economic stability and sustainability, then that is a direction that is worth at least considering.

But a bigger reason for adopting this stance is one that ought to speak to the well-being of the ranching community. For there is something unfair in the fact that environmentalists have targeted the beef industry so pointedly. There are claims out there that 70 percent of all grains and cereals produced in the nation are going toward fattening livestock. In so doing they are also laying the blame for all the water use and fertilization and herbicide use and pesticide use that goes with that much agriculture.

All of this blame is laid at the feet of not just the grain farmer but, by extension, the rancher who shipped his cattle off grass and watched at the sale ring as they were bought up and shipped off to be “finished” on grain. And this is to say nothing of the allegations that are made against the feedlot industry for what critics say is their creation of animal waste and what some contend are other undesirable byproducts of the feedlot practice. These criticisms, too, are placed on beef in general, and not just on the feedlot industry.

Whether the “70 percent” statistic is accurate or not, no one will try to deny that a large percentage of the grain being produced is indeed being fed to animals. But if fattening animals for slaughter is the problem, then is it wrong to say that the blame for that lies with the market forces that are seeking fatter beef? For it is entirely within the market’s grasp to look for and buy grass fattened beef. Some will say it is not as flavorful but others will strongly deny. Some will say it is tougher. That is a harder claim to refute, but there are other ways to deal with this issue also. A grassfattened steer might yield meat that is not as tender when cooked as a steak on a grill, but there are other forms of preparation that can do much to make it more palatable.

The beef can be ground into hamburger. It can be shredded, chopped, chipped, wafered, or stewed, or otherwise reduced to softer preparations. It can be slow-cooked at lower temperatures for greater tenderness. The fact is, it is high grade protein, and even if it had to be put through a meat grinder into the finest paste, it would still be a recipe ingredient that would increase the protein content of any dish and be received as a welcome upgrade, in most quarters and  most lands, to the diet. Protein is protein, and as a nutrient it is one of the hardest to come by and the quickest to be in short supply among deprived peoples.

It might be that the independent and often well-to-do types who form the rank-and-file of many environmental organizations are untouched enough by these kinds of realities to be able to decide that you, neighbor, don’t need animal proteins in your nutritional regimen. But whatever the reason, there is certainly a sentiment in some circles that this ought to be, and if the beef industry is going to face the harsher realities, then it ought listen a little less to the pooh-poohers who dismiss the idea that beef production can ever change, and consider instead the idea that if unsympathetic forces are on the move against beef, that different strategies are in order.

In other words, it could be time for the ranching industry to place the onus on the end-user, the consumer, for the “sins” of fattening beef, and to maintain that all the rancher does is bring an animal to a saleable size on grass, which is a far less offensive proposition, if offensive at all. If the animal is sent on to a feedlot, that is not an evil that ought necessarily be laid at the feet of the ranching/grazing industry. We can be in favor of grassfat beef. We can be in favor of it even as the meat packers drive the animals to the feedlot. That is not the doing of the rancher. It is the doing of the end user and the meat packer, and of those two, the end user deserves more of the blame.

And if finishing cattle on grass is a better choice, in terms of health and economy and environment, and if finishing cattle on grass is where things do move, then that 70 percent figure will decrease accordingly. Some will say that there is not enough grass to fatten that many cattle. But for every steer that is taken off feed, there is that much more of the 70 percent of grain-related farmland that is opened up for other usage. Perhaps it could be put into pasture.

In summary, the point I hope to make here, and the point I hoped to at least suggest in the print article, is that we who hope to defend the ranching community need to put ourselves into the business of defending grass, not grain. Grass is easily defensible, supremely defensible. The greatest vulnerability here rests upon the industry of fattening cattle, and that is in many respects an industry apart from ranching.

Please watch for the next issue of the magazine, in which we begin showing how taking cattle off of public lands creates detrimental effects that most Americans have never suspected.

—Jesse Mullins

<< BACK TO MAIN PAGE