As the owner of a multi-generational farm, Mardesen has seen industrial agriculture and factory farming take increasing control over meat production in the last few decades. With that has come the extreme overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming.

“You know, we want to produce more pounds of pork, more pounds of beef, more pounds of chicken on smaller and smaller resources. The best way they have come up with to continue with this efficiency push is to pound antibiotics,” says Mardesen. “I have never been comfortable taking an animal as intelligent as a pig and cramming them into a concrete box for the sake of efficiency.”

A recent report released by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that antibiotic sales for meat production increased by 4 percent from 2021 to 2022, with pigs and cattle accounting for the majority of sales. Antibiotic sales for animal use peaked in 2015, after which the FDA banned the use of antibiotics for animal growth, leading to a major decline in antibiotic sales the following year. But from 2017 onwards, antibiotic sales for livestock farming have steadily risen each year, increasing 12 percent from 2017 to 2022.

“I have never been comfortable taking an animal as intelligent as a pig and cramming them into a concrete box for the sake of efficiency.” 

About 70 percent of medically important antibiotics in the US are sold for animals, not humans. The more an antibiotic is used, the more both animals and humans develop resistance to them, which significantly lowers the effectiveness of the intervention, says Steve Roach, food program director at Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), an organization that advocates for humane farming. 

While antibiotics were originally used to treat sick animals, in the 1940s, farmers discovered regular antibiotic use could make animals grow faster in less time and with fewer resources. 

Although the US banned the use of antibiotics for growth, they are still used for disease prevention and disease control. If one animal gets sick, the entire group is often treated because they live in such close proximity to one another. 

Nearly a third of medically important antibiotics have no duration limit, meaning a farmer can use those antibiotics in feed for as long as they want to prevent disease. Roach says this allows farmers to keep animals in poor living conditions that are more likely to get them sick.

Ron Mardesen stopped the use of routine antibiotics nearly 40 years ago. (Photo courtesy of Ron Mardesen)

Antibiotic use is particularly common on factory farms, where certain practices lead to disease in animals. Cattle are often fed a corn or soy diet instead of grass, which can lead to illness. Baby pigs are weaned off their mother’s milk and fed solid foods before they’re ready, causing diarrhea. 

“Having animals close together in crowded conditions, it saves you money, but also disease can easily spread,” says Roach. “You give them a diet that causes problems, so you basically just feed them antibiotics continuously.”

Lynn Utesch, a cattle farmer in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin—a region often referred to as CAFO alley for its high concentration of factory farms—discovered early on that, with the right methods, he doesn’t need antibiotics to raise his cattle. He and his wife Nancy own a 150-acre grass-fed beef farm and use a rotational grazing method. Every two days, they move their cows to a new pasture and the animals have plenty of space from one another. In his 30 years farming, Utesch has never had to use antibiotics on his cattle, not even for treatment. 

“If you allow the animal to eat its natural diet, if you allow it to live the way that nature intended out in the open air and where it cannot be confined tightly to the other cows, then you don’t have any need for antibiotics because those animals are completely healthy,” says Utesch.

Lynn and Nancy Utesch. (Photo courtesy of Lynn Utesch)

When the Utesches started farming, their customers expressed a preference for antibiotic-free, grass-fed beef. It was hard to find that elsewhere at the time. These days, it’s what many consumers look for. A 2021 poll found that “antibiotic-free” labels are important to two-thirds of Americans when buying meat.

Despite this priority, labeling is far from straightforward. From “antibiotic-free” to “no antibiotics routinely used” to “antibiotics may be used,” there are plenty of ambiguities within labeling and there is little room for nuance, says Roach. Antibiotics were designed to treat sick animals, but the overuse and lack of transparency has led to “an all-or-nothing mindset” and negated their original intent, he says.

FACT supports antibiotic use for animal treatment, but only if it is approached with transparency and communication between the farmer and the certifier. The Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University is developing a “certified responsible antibiotic use” label, which would allow antibiotics for treatment but not for prevention.

“When you do use antibiotics for treatment, you need to report that to the certifier and let them know. And so we kind of prefer that label, but it’s harder to communicate that to the consumer,” says Roach. 

Unlike Utesch, Mardesen of A-Frame Acres does use antibiotics to treat a pig if it falls ill, but he uses a strict documentation process. He has to clearly identify the animal, what type of antibiotic was administered, the outcome of the treatment and where the animal was marketed. He cannot sell that pork to Niman Ranch, which has a strict “no-antibiotics ever” policy.

“If I do get an animal that does get sick, because I don’t routinely always throw antibiotics at these animals, when I have to treat an animal, the antibiotics that are available to use work a lot better on the farm,” says Mardesen.

Limiting antibiotic use will likely require stricter regulation from the FDA and more transparency in labeling. The USDA is considering implementing higher standards for meat to be labeled antibiotic free. But both Mardesen and Utesch say it starts with changing practices that benefit the animals so antibiotics aren’t needed for prevention or control. If there wasn’t such a focus on yield and production in the food system, fewer animals would be crammed into tight spaces and fed poor diets, says Utesch.

As a consumer, Utesch says the best thing you can do is educate yourself and learn where your food comes from. Look for organic and grass-fed meat, understand the different labels and, most of all, build a relationship with your local farmer. 

“Find a farmer, and not only just pick up the product the farmer has, but have a relationship where you say, ‘What does rotational grazing mean? Or outdoor access? What does that mean to you?’ Have a conversation about how an animal is actually raised and handled,” says Nancy Utesch. 

The post On the Ground with the Farmers Producing Antibiotic-Free Meat appeared first on Modern Farmer.

There’s no doubt that industrial animal agriculture carries a laundry list of sins; greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water pollution and labor rights abuses are just a few examples. But there’s also evidence that some regenerative grazing practices can enhance biodiversity, improve soil health and—possibly—sequester carbon. Not only that, but animal husbandry also has significant cultural value and eating animal products can have health benefits.

For some people, eschewing meat—or even all animal products—entirely is the only reasonable course of action. But for those who don’t want to go so far, “less” and “better” can seem like a pragmatic solution: There’s no need to cut out meat altogether; just cut down. Choose quality over quantity. Dig a little deeper, however, and things once again get very confusing. How much less is less? And how do we determine which meat is better?

Are chicken and pork the most climate-friendly options? Is it better for the planet to eat locally or organically? What’s the impact on my physical health of choosing one meat—or one meat alternative—over another? To be able to weigh up all these questions and accurately calculate which kind of meat and how much is “OK” for us to eat, the average consumer would need far more information, time and energy than anyone typically has at the grocery store. It can feel like we’re doomed to fail before we’ve even made a start.

Here’s the thing: There is no right answer when it comes to meat. And that’s OK. 

These questions and warring data points spurred us to make Less and Better?, our new podcast series from Farmerama Radio. Exasperated and concerned by the lack of nuance around this pressing issue, we wanted to try a different approach—one that attempts to illuminate the values and priorities that underlie even the most allegedly scientifically motivated positions.

For many people, the answer is simple: Just go vegan, or at least vegetarian. Studies show that diets without animal products have one-fourth the climate impact of meat-filled diets—from using less water and land and producing fewer carbon emissions. Rather than wrestling with the “best” meat to eat, many choose to forgo it altogether. 

But not everyone can do that. Meat holds cultural significance for many, and it can have nutritional benefits. There’s also a difference between heavily processed meat products and unprocessed meat, both in their effects on the body and the climate. So, for folks unable or unwilling to give up meat entirely, eating better-quality meat, and less of it, is the best approach. But even then, there are questions. The “right” answers to questions of how much less or what is better depend not only on a dizzying array of complex data but fundamentally hinge on which outcomes you believe are worth pursuing. Some argue that intensive factory farms produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, in general, than extensive, pasture-fed systems. Others disagree strongly with this, but say, for the sake of argument, we accept this as true. At first, it seems simple: “Better” meat is factory-farmed meat. Now we just need to figure out how much “less” we should eat.

But what if we think the most important issues are biodiversity loss and ecosystem health? Or water pollution? Or workers’ rights? Or animal welfare? We address each of these issues in our series, and each of them points to a potentially different answer. On that last point, for example, animal welfare scientist Professor Françoise Wemelsfelder argues that recognizing farm animals as sentient beings “probably means that large industrial farming systems are not morally feasible.”

Wrestling with these concepts and questions is a valuable and valid exercise; it’s commendable to make decisions about your consumption and purchases that reflect your morals and values. But, like comparing apples with oranges, trying to find the perfect answer is an impossible task. It could even have negative mental health outcomes. Research in the field of consumer behavior has shown that we can experience negative emotions when trying to make choices that force us to make “emotionally laden trade-offs.” And, higher levels of eco-anxiety are reported among folks with more environmental awareness. 

What “less” and “better” means for you also depends on what interests, values and biases underlie your particular vision of what the world could, and should, look like. Efforts to boil less and better down to simplistic questions of CO2 emissions per livestock unit or the relative technical merits of soil carbon sequestration versus cellular agriculture ignore political questions. Questions such as who benefits? Who holds the power? Who has access to “better” meat? And what kind of future are we building?

Ultimately, we don’t think it’s possible to provide a simple, silver-bullet answer to the question of what constitutes “less” and “better” meat. But we also think that’s kind of the whole point. When it comes to less and better meat, we think the real question we need to ask is better for whom and for what?

Listen to the podcast series Less and Better? by Farmerama Radio here. 

The post Opinion: There’s No Right Way to Eat Meat appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“The nomenclature changes with the marketing decisions of industry actors,” says Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft, author of Meat Planet: Artificial Flesh and the Future of Food, who notes that these actors—including food startups and environmental nonprofits—choose their words carefully in the hopes of winning consumer acceptance. (Wurgaft prefers “cultured meat” due to its relatively neutral proximity to the technology that defines it.)

In 2013, Dutch scientist Mark Post presented the first cultured meat product, a hamburger made possible by the financial support of American entrepreneur Sergey Brin. A decade later, cultured meat (by any name) still is not for sale on supermarket shelves. 

It is also still pending approval by the United States Department of Agriculture, despite some confusion in the media over the matter. In November of 2022, Upside Foods, a cultured meat producer based in Berkeley, California, received what is known as a “No Questions Letter” from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Wurgaft explains that this has since been “treated as regulatory approval in the media, when in fact it means that the FDA simply doesn’t have any questions to ask about the process.”  

A cultivation room at Upside Foods’ Engineering, Production & Innovation Center. (Photo via Upside Foods)

With or without government approval, leaders in the field continue to doubt the scalability of cultured meat. The result, Wurgaft says, is a “bizarre situation in which we have plants in the Bay Area shutting down while others are opening saying they will have a product very soon.” 

Nevertheless, a State of the Industry Report published in February by the US-based nonprofit organization The Good Food Institute reported that the cellular agriculture industry now comprises 156 companies working in 26 countries and is expected to continue growing, thanks to the investment of $896 million in 2022. 

The industry, however, will not continue its growth in Italy, which, as of March 27, 2023, has taken action to become the first country to formally ban cultured meat products within its national borders. In a press release about the ban, the Italian government claims it is acting in the interest of “preserving the agricultural and culinary heritage” of Italy.  

In the weeks since the announcement of the ban, its opponents—both in Italy and around the world—have vocalized their support for cultured meat on the grounds that it offers meat without slaughter and the reduction of pollution associated with industrial animal agriculture. While inspirational, the promises of the cultured meat industry remain aspirational. They also tend to omit the fact that this form of food production is not entirely harmless. Cultured meat makes no claims of being wholly vegan, but its proponents rarely advertise the details of its creation, which requires blood from a cow fetus in addition to cells from a live animal. Research by Frontiers also demonstrates that, while the production of cultured meat may produce less methane than conventional animal agriculture, it could produce more carbon dioxide in the long term. 

Despite ongoing obstacles, the original goals associated with cellular agriculture continue to spur startups to experiment with every kind of meat, from steaks to chicken nuggets to sashimi-style seafood, with the intention of replacing meat eaten both in the home and while dining out. “In terms of impact, numbers and scale, the ideal would be to undercut the forms of cheap meat seen at places such as McDonald’s so that we can work against the incredible environmental and animal cruelty footprints of the meat industry worldwide,” says Wurgaft.  

When it comes to making the most sustainable and ethical decision, Wurgaft points out that vegetarian sources of protein, such as chickpeas, will always be the better option in comparison to all types of meat products; however, this fact is rebuffed as “naive” when brought up in the discourse around cultured meat. “There’s this story about what is realistic to expect from the global population.” 

The “realistic” expectation is that the worldwide consumption of meat will continue to increase in line with a globalized version of the meat-centric Western Diet. It is precisely because of this global dietary trend—which manifested in the opening of a McDonald’s in Rome in 1986—that Carlo Petrini founded the Slow Food Movement. As with the ban on cultured meat, the movement embodies the Italian tendency to favor tradition over innovation. 

Farmers Alessandra Rellini and Stefano Pinna make Italian-style cured meats with pastured pork sourced from their farm. (Photo courtesy Agricola Farm)

Farmers Alessandra Rellini and Stefano Pinna sit squarely at the center of this discourse in more ways than one. Rellini and Pinna are Italian immigrants, born and raised in Northern Italy, who relocated to Vermont, where they co-own Agricola Farm. They raise a variety of livestock, including close to 200  pigs, which they butcher at a facility near the farm to produce Italian-style cured meats. 

“It’s a love-hate relationship with my traditions,” says Rellini. “In one sense, I love the way that Italy preserves certain traditions—it’s what makes me feel alive and connected to other generations of Italians. At the same time, innovation and evolving is part of our human nature.” 

“I don’t think our culture will disappear,” adds Pinna. “But I can see that my generation and younger generations are getting too far from food production.” 

Rellini and Pinna have many practices in place to ensure the health of both the pigs and their farmland, including minimizing the use of commodity crops such as corn and soybean as feed in favor of fresh pasture when possible and following a rotational grazing plan that involves moving the pigs every two weeks and seeding cover crops on fields after grazing. 

Alessandra Rellini and Stefano Pinna raise their pigs on pastureland. (Photo courtesy Agricola Farm)

Among Agricola Farm’s selection of cured meats is lonzino, a product similar to the more popular prosciutto. With a recorded history of production on the Italian peninsula dating back to the eleventh century BC and a Protected Designation of Origin label that limits production to a certain area within Italy and requires the meat be aged for a minimum of 400 days, prosciutto is precisely the kind of product the Italian government is seeking to protect. Rellini and Pinna uphold similar traditional practices on American soil in the making of all their products, including the lonzino, which is aged for four months. Add to this the 12 to 16 months of the pig’s life before slaughter—more than twice as long as the life of most commercially raised pigs—and the result is two years of skill, hard work and care put into a single product. A portion of cultured meat, by comparison, can be grown in as little as two weeks. 

Faster, however, is not necessarily better, especially if it encourages an even greater increase in global meat consumption. Rellini points out that Italian cured meats, which are deeply flavorful because of the long curing process, are “a great way to consume meat because you don’t have a whole steak—you have a few slices and it’s satisfying.” 

While Rellini and Pinna state that they would not eat cultured meat, Rellini says, “I see a problem with banning it. Sometimes, as Italians, we are too quick to block change.” 

With the world’s population expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050, there is no doubt that our global food system will need to change to adapt. The question of whether the most ethical and sustainable solutions can be found in the past, by carrying on historic farming traditions like Rellini and Pinna, or in the future, by inventing new means of food production, will be determined as much by consumers as by countries—and it all comes down to culture.

The post Italy’s Ban on Cultured Meat Raises Questions About Innovation Versus Tradition appeared first on Modern Farmer.

While the ruling was fractured and reflected complex legal questions, it is a major victory for those working to improve farm animal welfare. A number of states will undoubtedly take advantage of the power that the Supreme Court has recognized.

As a specialist in animal law, I expect that this will result in a patchwork of laws that are likely to make national meat producers very uncomfortable. Ultimately, it could push Congress to set federal standards.

More indoor space for sows

Pork producers sued California over a law that the state’s voters adopted in 2018 via ballot initiative with over 63 percent approval. It set new conditions for raising hogs, veal calves and egg-laying chickens whose meat or eggs are sold in California. The state produces virtually no pork, but represents about 15 percent of the US pork market.

At most commercial hog farms, pregnant sows are kept in pens called gestation crates that measure about 2 feet by 7 feet—enough room for the animals to sit, stand and lie down, but not enough to turn around. California’s law requires that each sow must have at least 24 square feet of floor space—nearly double the amount that most now get. It does not require farmers to raise free-range pigs; just provide more square footage for hogs in buildings.

The National Pork Producers Council argued that this requirement imposed heavy compliance costs on farmers across the US, since large hog farms may house thousands of sows, and that it restricted interstate commerce. The Constitution’s commerce clause delegates authority to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government. In a series of cases over the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has made clear that it will strike down any state law that seeks to control commerce in another state or give preference to in-state commerce.

States control farm animal welfare

Congress has remained mute on standards for handling farm animals, which are not covered under the 1966 Animal Welfare Act. Consequently, each state regulates this issue within its borders.

For example, in recent years, nine states have outlawed housing egg-laying chickens in “battery cages” that have been the industry standard for decades. These wire enclosures are so small that the birds cannot spread their wings.

Chickens in battery cages. (Photo: Shutterstock)

And nine states in addition to California have adopted laws requiring pork producers to phase out gestation crates. Massachusetts’ law, like California’s, would also apply to retail sales of pork raised elsewhere, but its enforcement has been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in the California case.

California’s market power

The California law says that if producers want to sell pork in California, they must raise pigs under conditions that comply with the state’s regulations. Farmers do not have to meet these standards unless they want to sell in California. The same requirement is applied to producers located in California and those based elsewhere, so the law does not directly discriminate between states in a way that would constitute a clear commerce clause violation.

Producers of eggs and veal that sell in California are on track to implement new space requirements for their animals under the law. But instead of working out how to comply, the pork industry sought to have the courts set the California law aside.

However, as the Supreme Court noted, major producers, including Hormel and Tyson, have said they will be able to comply with the California standard. Niman Ranch, a network of family farmers and ranchers who raise livestock humanely and sustainably, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting California.

A fractured verdict

In rejecting the pork industry’s position, justices in the majority disagreed as to why the California law should be upheld. Some held that pork producers had not proved that the law would substantially interfere with interstate commerce. Others argued that regardless of the degree of interference, it was inappropriate to ask courts to balance compliance costs for the industry against California voters’ moral concerns about animal welfare.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett largely supported Gorsuch’s opinion.

Similarly, dissenting justices differed as to why the California law posed a constitutional problem. Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson asserted that the substantial interference requirement had been met, and they would have remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that the California law should be held void because the positive animal welfare outcomes were not substantial enough to overcome the increased cost it imposed on pork producers.

Beyond pork

Farmers and animal welfare advocates understand that with this win, states with the most progressive animal welfare policies—primarily West Coast and Northeast states—will be able to effectively set national standards for the well-being of many agricultural animals, including chickens, dairy cows and cattle. Conceivably, California might also be able to require basic conditions for human labor, such as minimum wage standards, associated with products sold in California.

I expect that within five years, Congress will enact national legislation on farm animal welfare issues that will preempt differing state laws. It is impossible to predict now whether a new national law would improve animal welfare or adopt existing poor welfare practices – but California’s win represents a major victory for advocates who have sought for years to improve conditions for farm animals across the US.

David Favre is a Professor of Law at Michigan State University.

This is an update of an article originally published October 4, 2022. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Supreme Court’s Ruling on Humane Treatment of Pigs Could Catalyze a Wave of New Animal Welfare Laws appeared first on Modern Farmer.

It’s a tough topic to dive into, in part because there isn’t just one answer. In her new book, Raw Deal: Hidden Corruption, Corporate Greed, and the Fight for the Future of Meat, Chloe Sorvino takes on the challenge. A journalist who has spent nearly a decade covering food and agriculture for Forbes, Sorvino lays bare the inner workings of the meat industry with clear-eyed practicality—from the scale of the environmental cost of meat to the depths of corporate greed and consolidation of power. 

Sorvino spoke with Modern Farmer about why local movements challenging the status quo of meat have their limitations and why the pandemic was such a turning point for the industry. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Modern Farmer: Your book opens with the pandemic, but the problems that you delve into—including the environmental toll of meat and the consolidation in the packing industry—originated before 2020. What about the past three years was a turning point for meat? 

Chloe Sorvino: I wanted to start out with the pandemic because it was such a catalyzing moment for so many American shoppers, who were seeing meat shortages play out in stores and restaurants in real time. The pandemic was a perfect storm, in terms of the corporatization and the hidden externalities of the meat industry that you don’t really see. 

Factory workers were being forced to stay on the line because meat companies were exporting more than ever before and profits were as high as ever. At the same time, there are so many environmental consequences for that production. And then on top of that, there’s a lot of waste happening, because of shutdowns and supply chain backups.

I thought the pandemic could also help paint a picture of more crises to come. Climate change is going to make how we get our food so much harder.

MF: It does seem that COVID really brought a number of these issues to light and showed how they intersect.  

CS: The pandemic opened up a lot of long-term questions about food access. I think some people didn’t realize how much they relied on meat in their supermarket carts and in their refrigerators until it became much harder or more expensive to purchase. At the same time, there was also this hoarding fear that was happening. I wanted to try to understand who was fearful and why, because I think there are long-term questions about access to meat.

MF: This book explores so many aspects of the meat industry, but one of the things that rightly gets a lot of attention is the consolidation that’s happening within the meatpacking industry. In efforts to prevent consolidation or at least temper its effects, we’ve seen executives from major companies sit before Congress, we have the Packers and Stockyards Act and competition executive orders and yet consolidation is still rife in the industry. Is this something that can be remedied? 

CS: It’s hard for me to pick one policy or one legal change, because I think the consolidation has impacted every part of the supply chain. It’s been really hard, even before there was a split Congress, to get legislation with enforceable accountability to pass through. 

But I think there are a lot of different ways that this power dynamic (between producers and packing companies) can be counterbalanced. There needs to be better regulations and more anti-trust enforcement—which is easier said than done. There also could be bills that require insider trading accountability or disclosures and transparency rules for purchases of meat or cattle feed that contractors are making with their long-term producers or growers. I think legislation could also do a way better job to support mobile slaughterhouses, which I write a lot about in the book, or other unique ways of slaughter.

You can’t really unscramble the eggs that have been scrambled. And so what you need to do is make the system more accountable, more transparent and give these power dynamics more levers.

MF: Do you see any of this coming in the Farm Bill?

CS: Well, what I’ve learned from all of my research and analysis is that there really needs to be a reshaping of how the $400 billion from the Farm Bill is spent. There’s a lot of money that is currently incentivizing really problematic systems. Why are the co-insurances and crop insurances supporting monoculture? Why can’t there be requirements for cover crops or even organic farming? At a bare minimum, cover cropping would do so much to shake out nitrogen fertilizer from the system. And that’s one of the biggest problems our waterways and soils really face. 

On a fundamental level, though, it needs to be a rerouting of subsidies and funding towards regionalizing the food system. There’s been a loss of canneries, small plants and different types of infrastructure that local purveyors and artisans can use to make their products in more efficient ways, which support their communities. There’s infrastructure crumbling around us. Why not invest in super small scale local production?

Chloe Sorvino.                                                                  Photography by Nick Rice.

MF: One of the things that struck me throughout the book is that there’s a sense of this whole industry being so big, but many of the players are so small—especially when it comes to fighting things like price fixing or worker’s rights in court. How did the people you spoke with for the book push back against that? 

CS: Well, I came to a point where I was questioning whether or not people really understood how big the Goliath was in this instance. 

However, the price-fixing cases that you mentioned have been, on some levels, like a legal reckoning. Those cases—and there’s been hundreds of them—are winning, and they’re going to keep playing out for years. Some of them have even been guilty pleas. While I wrote about some of these early, really big, wild settlements, there were even consent decrees with the Department of Justice over the summer, which acknowledged a lot of serious problems (including suppressing worker pay and deceptive practices with poultry producers). 

I think to see the amount of money the government spent on the cases shows that they are trying to be a counterweight, in some ways, as much as they can be. They would have given up otherwise. It’s absolutely a David and Goliath situation. That’s why I wanted to end the book discussing how, at the end of the day, it’s really only your community that’s going to help you. Billionaires are never going to come and save you. 

MF: You talk about the importance of local grocery stores and farmers, and you also explicitly say that you don’t expect everyone to be vegan. We are, however, due for a reckoning when it comes to how much meat we consume. What does that reckoning look like?

CS: In the book, I talk about how we wouldn’t really ever be able to do a one-for-one switchover to grass-fed or pasture-raised systems, because there’s not enough land that would work. There are areas where there was too much cropland degraded from monoculture and harsh chemicals over the generations, some lands that only manure is going to be able to rehabilitate and other areas around the world that are too rocky to grow vegetables from, but could be used for grazing. 

I also think it’s wrong just to say that everyone should be vegan, but I wanted to be super clear that global demand for meat needs to decrease. Americans eat way too much meat overall; meat consumption has to go down. And when it comes to industrial meat, there’s confinement and systems that are making climate change worse. That all needs to come to an end. 

MF: With all of that in mind, what is “good meat?” Does it even exist? 

CS: I think it barely exists in America today because so much harm has been built into the meat industry for so long. But, I am optimistic that some meat is good. 

I think good meat is something that does not harm the environment: It doesn’t cause pollution, it’s not harming workers or consumers. For those reasons, I think it’s very hard to say hunted meat is not ethical. You also can’t tell me that pasture-raised animals—like lamb, pork, chicken or maybe even beef—running over degraded cropland and grazing in a multi-adaptive, multi-paddock grazing method is a problem. But, so little of it exists right now. I do think there’s a place for meat in the future. I think there has to be. But it just has to look significantly different.

The post Is There Such Thing as Good Meat? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The world’s population is growing, and so is the challenge of feeding everyone. Current projections indicate that by 2050, global food demand could increase by 59 to 98 percent above current levels. In particular, there will be increased demand for high-quality protein foods, such as meat and dairy products.

Livestock producers in the US and other exporting countries are looking for ways to increase their output while also being sensitive to the environmental impacts of agricultural production. One important leverage point is finding ingredients for animal feed that can substitute for grains, freeing more farmland to grow crops for human consumption.

Cattle are natural upcyclers: Their specialized digestive systems allow them to convert low-quality sources of nutrients that humans cannot digest, such as grass and hay, into high-quality protein foods like meat and milk that meet human nutritional requirements. But when the protein content of grass and hay becomes too low, typically in winter, producers feed their animals an additional protein source—often soybean meal. This strategy helps cattle grow, but it also drives up the cost of meat and leaves less farmland to grow crops for human consumption.

Growing grains also has environmental impacts: For example, large-scale soybean production is a driver of deforestation in the Amazon. For all of these reasons, our laboratory is working to identify alternative, novel protein sources for cattle.

Black soldier fly larvae

An insect farming industry is emerging rapidly across the globe. Producers are growing insects for animal feed because of their nutritional profile and ability to grow quickly. Data also suggests that feeding insects to livestock has a smaller environmental footprint than conventional feed crops such as soybean meal.

Among thousands of edible insect species, one that’s attracting attention is the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). In their larval form, black soldier flies are 45 percent protein and 35 percent fat. They can be fed efficiently on wastes from many industries, such as pre-consumer food waste. The larvae can be raised on a large scale in factory-sized facilities and are shelf-stable after they are dried.

RELATED: Is It Ethical to Farm Insects for Food?

Most adults in the US aren’t ready to put black soldier fly larvae on their plates but are much more willing to consume meat from livestock that are fed black soldier fly larvae. This has sparked research into using black soldier fly larvae as livestock feed.

Black soldier fly larvae. Photo by Hanan Azhar, Shutterstock.

Already approved for other livestock

Extensive research has shown that black soldier fly larvae can be fed to chickens, pigs and fish as a replacement for conventional protein feeds such as soybean meal and fish meal. The American Association of Feed Control Officials, whose members regulate the sale and distribution of animal feeds in the US, has approved the larvae as feed for poultry, pigs and certain fish.

So far, however, there has been scant research on feeding black soldier fly larvae to cattle. This is important for several reasons. First, more than 14 million cattle and calves are fed grain or feed in the US. Second, cattle’s specialized digestive system may allow them to utilize black soldier fly larvae as feed more efficiently than other livestock.

Promising results in cattle

Early in 2022, our laboratory published results from the first trial of feeding black soldier fly larvae to cattle. We used cattle that had been surgically fitted with small, porthole-like devices called cannulas, which allowed us to study and analyze the animals’ rumens—the portion of their stomach that is primarily responsible for converting fiber feeds, such as grass and hay, into energy that they can use.

Cannulation is widely used to study digestion in cattle, sheep and goats, including the amount of methane they burp, which contributes to climate change. The procedure is carried out by veterinary professionals following strict protocols to protect the animals’ well-being.

RELATED: Seaweed May Be the Answer to the Burping Cow Problem

In our study, the cattle consumed a base diet of hay plus a protein supplement based on either black soldier fly larvae or conventional cattle industry protein feeds. We know that feeding cows a protein supplement along with grass or hay increases the amount of grass and hay they consume, so we hoped the insect-based supplement would have the same effect.

That was exactly what we observed: The insect-based protein supplement increased animals’ hay intake and digestion similarly to the conventional protein supplement. This indicates that black soldier fly larvae have potential as an alternative protein supplement for cattle.

Costs and byproducts

We have since conducted three additional trials evaluating black soldier fly larvae in cattle, including two funded by the US Department of Agriculture. We are especially interested in feeding cattle larvae that have had their fat removed. Data suggest that the fat can be converted to biodiesel, yielding two sustainable products from black soldier flies.

We are also studying how consuming the larvae will affect methane-producing microbes that live in cattle’s stomachs. If our current research on this question, which is scheduled for publication in the spring of 2023, indicates that consuming black soldier fly larvae can reduce the amount of methane cows produce, we hope it will motivate regulators to approve the larvae as cattle feed.

Economics also matter. How much will beef and dairy cattle producers pay for insect-based feed, and can the insects be raised at that price point? To begin answering these questions, we conducted an economic analysis of black soldier fly larvae for the US cattle industry, also published early in 2022.

We found that the larvae would be priced slightly higher than current protein sources normally fed to cattle, including soybean meal. This higher price reflects the superior nutritional profile of black soldier fly larvae. However, it is not yet known if the insect farming industry can grow black soldier fly larvae at this price point, or if cattle producers would pay it.

The global market for edible insects is growing quickly, and advocates contend that using insects as ingredients can make human and animal food more sustainable. In my view, the cattle feeding industry is an ideal market, and I hope to see further research that engages both insect and cattle producers.

Merritt Drewery is an assistant professor of animal science at Texas State University.

The post Opinion: Feeding Insects to Cows Could Make Meat and Dairy More Sustainable appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The cattle breed, known as PRLR-SLICK, was developed using a genome-editing technique called CRISPR, which is used to breed animals with specific traits. Unlike genetically modified organisms (GMO), which typically involve adding genetic material from other organisms and result in a plant or animal that would not exist in nature, gene-editing utilizes genes already native in a species, resulting in an organism that could, theoretically, occur through a natural breeding process.

[RELATED: Breeding Better Beans]

The federal agency called the decision to introduce the beef cattle to be raised for meat “low risk” after determining that the intentional genomic alteration (IGA) of the cattle does not cause any safety concerns. Pending a forthcoming safety review, the meat could land on shelves in as little as two years.

In a press release, the FDA explained that IGAs are “alterations made using molecular technologies that introduce changes to the genome of an animal.” According to Successful Farming, a “precision breeding” company called Acceligen in Minnesota is responsible for utilizing the CRISPR technique to produce the slick-coat cattle. It’s not the first to use the technology on cows, however. In 2020, researchers at UC Davis used CRISPR technology to breed a cow, named Cosmo, designed to produce 75-percent male offspring.

In the past, the FDA has approved similar genetic modifications in salmon, goat, chicken, rabbit and, most recently, pigs. However, the PRLR-SLICK cattle are the first to receive an official “low-risk determination for enforcement discretion,” meaning the administration deemed there are no practical differences in the final product (meat) made by the gene-edited cattle and conventionally bred cattle. 

With the slick-coat trait occurring naturally in some cattle, the gene-edited cattle are the same—as far as a consumer is concerned—as other cattle with the same traits. “Further, the food from the cattle is the same as food from conventionally bred cattle that have the same slick-hair trait,” said the FDA. 

[RELATED: What Does the Future of Ethical Meat Look Like?]

The FDA reviewed genomic data and other information provided by the developer to reach its safety determination.  

Steven Solomon, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said in the press release that the decision will likely pave the way for future gene editing. “We expect that our decision will encourage other developers to bring animal biotechnology products forward for the FDA’s risk determination in this rapidly developing field, paving the way for animals containing low-risk IGAs to more efficiently reach the marketplace.”

Farmers that plan to use the PRLR-SLICK cattle will not have to register with the administration. 

The post FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows For Beef appeared first on Modern Farmer.

At least, that’s the claim.

The field of cell-cultured meat has flourished since the first hamburger was grown in a lab in the Netherlands in 2013. Now, companies are using cells from live animals to grow everything from sausage crumbles to T-bone steaks. Far from plant-based meat, which often uses a base ingredient such as soybeans or mushrooms, this meat is meat. It is animal tissue—just without an animal needing to die in the process. 

[RELATED: Pet Food Companies Look to the Future With Cell-Cultured Meat]

Meat such as ground beef or sausage is “unstructured” and generally easier to grow in a lab. The animal DNA and required nutrients are placed in a bioreactor, and the meat spawns from there. It will essentially form into a shape and texture comparable to ground meat, because it doesn’t need to bind itself around a structure. Growing something like a pork chop or chicken breast, though, is more difficult.

But companies such as Atelier Meats, devoted to growing cell-cultured meat, are up for the challenge—and they are already working on processes for cultivating custom-made meats. “There would be multiple trays in the bioreactor versus just one of ground beef. Each tray would have an individual scaffold, which is the framework around which the meat would grow,” explains co-founder Rahim Rajwani. “For example, if a national retailer, like Costco, said, ‘We want a particular steak that is shaped just like our regular eight-ounce steak. We want it to be 40-percent protein and 60-percent fat with 30-percent of that entire steak being marbled.’ We could literally create that exact steak, even down to the size.”

Of course, that level of bulk ordering of cultivated meat isn’t happening—at least not yet. But it could, if the consumer base is there. “Consumers are fickle. They’re always looking for something new and innovative,” says John Stanton, professor of food marketing at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. While cell-grown meat is certainly innovative, Stanton says the key to getting the wider public interested in it is to showcase what makes cell-grown meat a better alternative to traditional sources. What’s the added value? Is it healthier or better for the environment or less harmful to animals? Producers like Rajwani would argue yes on all of those points, and Stanton says those are the key selling features of cultivated meat. 

Rajwani predicts that the product itself will drive demand and shift the market. National retailers collect information about their shoppers—their habits, which products sell at which points of the year and why. This metadata could be what spurs future orders. “So, a retailer will know that, for barbecue season, their customers, on average, will buy $200 worth of steak in a month. Is it a T-bone? Is it filets? Is it a Canadian steak or does it come from another country?” Rajwani says. That information could fuel future orders, with companies able to grow specific cuts of meat at certain times of the year, aligning with holidays or high-consumption events. Preparing extra burgers for the July 4th barbecues or an abundance of chicken wings before the Super Bowl means that other parts of the animal aren’t wasted or sold at a discount when they’re not in demand. If you only need a lot of turkey for Thanksgiving, then only grow turkey for Thanksgiving. 

[RELATED: What Does the Future of Ethical Meat Look Like?]

So, cell-grown meat can be fully customized. It’s arguably better for the animals involved, which could have spillover benefits for human health as well. There is debate over whether lab-grown meat is any better for the environment, as the energy outputs and emissions needed for the technology are substantial. Still, with livestock responsible for nearly 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, cell-grown meat will likely have a place in the market. That is, if companies can move past the gross-out factor of growing meat in a lab.

“I think the ick factor goes away strictly through education and, ultimately, through taste profile. Once you’ve educated the consumer, it becomes a question of getting the product in the consumer’s hands for them to eat it. And I think that’s where things change,” says Rajwani, who believes cell-cultured meat has a lot to offer customers. He notes that potential diseases such as Mad Cow can be avoided with cultured meat. The tech also doesn’t require the antibiotics a live animal would ingest, although researchers argue that the potential health impacts for human consumption of cell-culture meat aren’t fully known yet. 

Of course, before any customers jump on or off board, they need to have access to these products. Right now, cell-grown meat is still too rare and expensive to be widely available, and there are a number of different regulatory hurdles it needs to get through before being sold across the country. A number of states have introduced legislation to banish words such as  “meat,” “beef” or “chicken” on lab-grown meat labels, bills that are widely supported by cattle ranchers and associations across the country. Washington state has one of the most restrictive bills under consideration, known as the natural meat protection act, which would bar the sale of cell-grown meat in the state and restrict state funding from going toward research in the sector. The FDA is also still considering what cell-grown meat should be called, and both the USDA and FDA have oversight of food made with cultured animal cells. Several companies are hoping to get their products on grocery store shelves across America this year, pending the approval of the regulatory boards.  

[RELATED: Lab-Grown Meat Receives Its First Approval for Sale—In Singapore]

Wildtype, a company growing “sushi-grade” salmon, says expansion is one of its primary objectives. To start, it plans to launch in restaurants. But co-founder Justin Kolbeck wants “future customers to know that accessibility is a critical part of our mission as a company. We will not have accomplished our vision for a cleaner, more sustainable seafood future if people can only buy Wildtype salmon in select restaurants.” Rajwani goes further, saying that cultivated meat could be the answer to food insecurity around the world. 

It’s a big goal. How likely is it? According to Rajwani, the technology is moving quickly enough that we could see widespread adoption of cell-grown meat in the next two to three years. Others aren’t so sure if the technology is really up to par or if the economic realities of production add up. 

Could cell-grown meat be the future of ethical meat consumption? Perhaps a solution to our environmental crisis? A way to feed the masses? It’s too early to say how big of an impact this sector will have on the larger meat industry, although biotech companies are certainly working to bring their products to grocery stores. In the meantime, we can keep dreaming about perfect juicy steaks, grown just for us.

The post Steak’s Next Frontier: Customized and Lab-Grown to Order appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The investigation, which began on Jan. 13, raises into question the environmental justice concerns of the North Carolina regulator’s move to allow the biogas operations and how it may disproportionately impact and pollute the surrounding communities of color, reports Inside Climate News.

The EPA probe comes after a September 2021 complaint by the Southern Environmental Law Center, stating that the biogas operations would pollute the air and groundwater in predominantly Black and Latinx communities; therefore, violating North Carolina environmental laws and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

The state’s plan, which would allow the use of hog waste digesting equipment to create the biogas, failed to address the disproportionate impact on the surrounding communities in its Department of Environmental Quality’s environmental justice report. The $500-million biogas production project would involve anaerobic digestors installed over the hog waste lagoons, which would capture methane to then be sold as natural gas. 

[RELATED: What Does the Future of Ethical Meat Look Like?]

The four facilities that received the permits—all owned by Smithfield Foods Inc.—are located in Dublin and Sampson counties, which are both home to high populations of Hispanic, Latinx and Black residents, according to census data. The counties also lead in the highest concentration of hog production facilities in the country, raising more than nine million hogs a year.  

Questions related to the environmental impact of hog waste collection are not new to the region. The North Carolina counties are prone to flooding, and after hurricanes and heavy rainfall caused lagoons to overflow on multiple occasions, Smithfield Foods Inc. agreed in 2000 to pay for research into a new, “environmentally effective and economically viable” way to deal with the hog waste, according to a 2018 ProPublica investigation. But 22 years later, and just three years from the expiration date of Smithfield’s financial deal, the open pit lagoons are still used and still a cause for environmental concern.

In response to environmental organizations’ and citizens’ concerns over the permits, on Oct. 22, 2021, James H. Johnson, who serves as the chair of the state’s Environmental Justice And Equity Advisory Board, sent a note to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality secretary Elizabeth Biser, calling for protection against hog waste pollution to be included within the permits and referring to the biogas produced in this process as “not a clean source of energy.”

In spite of the EPA’s decision to investigate the permits and backlash from concerned community members, North Carolina’s state regulator is on track for finalizing the permits in July of this year.

The post EPA Launches Investigation Into North Carolina Hog Operations appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“India’s agreement to allow US pork imports for the first time is great news and a significant development for US producers and for Indian consumers,” said US Trade Representative Katherine Tai in a statement. 

The trade agreement comes as a relief to the National Pork Producers Council (NPCC). “After decades of work, a market that had been closed to US pork is being opened,” said NPPC president Jen Sorenson. “We look forward to the new access, which will allow us to provide affordable, wholesome and nutritious US pork products to consumers in India.”

The US Meat Export Federation (USMEF) also applauded the deal: “While the volumes of imported pork currently entering India are quite small, USMEF sees long-term potential in the retail, processing and food service sectors, as well as emerging opportunities in e-commerce.”

The soft ban on US pork began in 2019, after the US removed India from participation in the Generalised System of Preferences, a former program that gave foreign countries access to the US markets without tariffs. The US also wanted India to accept the standard food inspection certifications for US meat, but the country declined, asking for additional inspections. Now, the country will accept the standard documentation.

In the bi-lateral trade agreement, the US will also send alfalfa and cherries to the country, while opening up to imports of mangoes and pomegranates. At the November forum, both countries agreed to the trade, which US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack says will begin as soon as possible. 

In 2021, the US was the third largest producer of pork in the world, with more than 12 million metric tons of pork coming from US producers.

The post US to Export Pork to India For the First Time appeared first on Modern Farmer.