In defence of a big, juicy steak

Financial Post
Robert Sopuck
January 11, 2008

Cows efficiently convert grass and hay, non-human food, to people food. Big deal you say. However, grass and hay are perennial plants that cover the land with a permanent layer of vegetation that prevents soil erosion during rains and windstorms, and they provide habitat for wildlife such as nesting ducks, songbirds and my beloved sharp-tailed grouse. Extensive beef production in ranch country is an agricultural system that promotes animal welfare, landscape conservation and wildlife preservation.

Critics of the cattle industry cite the plight of the rainforest, methane production and overgrazing as reasons to shut down the cattle industry, all the while ignoring the landscape conservation benefits of well-managed, extensive cattle ranching. To be blunt, cattle create an economic incentive to conserve, manage and create diverse and productive grasslands. Those great, and seemingly boring, vistas of native Prairie in Saskatchewan and Alberta (often contemptuously dismissed as "drive-through country") represent a treasure trove of wildlife and biodiversity, one of the great natural wonders of North America. And it is still in existence because of ranchers.

Cattle critics argue that humans should bypass meat and consume the plant products of the land, thus ensuring more efficient use of the Earth's resources. The problem with that argument is that not all hectares are created equal. We have millions of hectares of sandy, sloping and fragile land that will produce grain crops for a few years, but as the soil is played out, higher and higher levels of inputs are required to grow crops during this downward spiral of soil degradation. Much better to have such fragile land covered with a conservation blanket of perennial vegetation that is cropped by a well-managed cattle herd. By the way, for the holier than thou tofu eaters out there, your dietary preference encourages the expansion of row-crop soybean production, often at the expense of native grasslands. No tofu will ever find its way into our home; we care too much about the land.

As for the red-meat-is-bad-for-you argument, I take the view that if you give up fat (and sugar and alcohol, too, for that matter) you may not live longer; it will just seem that way. Make your own call on that one, but I am here to live a little. As Clifton Fadiman wrote, "I have yet to meet a man who, with a good tournedos Rossini inside him, was not the finer for it, the more open to virtuous influences."

So, when you are about to tuck into a big juicy steak, ponder what it represents. That meal of Canadian ranched beef has contributed to landscape and wildlife conservation and kept generations of land stewards in the ranching business for the benefit of all of us.

--- - Robert Sopuck, a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy, directs the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's Smart Green Frontiers Project.

Have your meat and eat it too

University of Kentucky – College of Agriculture
Katie Pratt
January 09, 2008

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Jan. 9, 2008) – After recent conflicting studies regarding a potential link between meat, obesity and cancer, many people might be puzzled about the nutritional value of meat and the proper amount to include in a healthy diet. Gregg Rentfrow, University of Kentucky meat science extension specialist, said studies show there is no link between meat, obesity and cancer, and meat consumption is a part of a healthy lifestyle.

Rentfrow said meat often is associated with high levels of trans fat, which causes so-called “bad” cholesterol levels to rise and increases the risk for heart disease. While cattle and sheep meats contain a small amount of trans fat when produced naturally, this is nowhere near the amount of trans fat that is added during food preparation when meat is cooked with hydrogenated cooking oils.

While many people are aware meat is a good source of protein, they may not realize it also contains many vitamins and minerals. Meat is the only natural source of some B-vitamins and contains 40 percent of the daily recommended amount of zinc. It also contains iron and amino acids. Protein found in meat is 95 to 100 percent digestible by the human body while only 65 to 70 percent of plant proteins can be digested, Rentfrow said.

Similar to many diet plans, he said the key healthy ways for people to incorporate meat into their diets are portion size and exercise.

“The amount of meat a person should eat depends on their activity level,” Rentfrow said. “Athletes need more protein in their diets than others to keep their muscles strong.”

He said a suggested serving size of meat for the average person is the size of a deck of cards, but that doesn’t mean people cannot occasionally enjoy a 12-ounce prime rib at a restaurant. However, they should not eat such large portions every night, he added. Limit portion size and fat content in meat by shopping for leaner cuts, which are offered in each meat commodity.

New Year’s Goals For The Ag Community Focused On A Strong, Prosperous 2008

Cattle Network
Dan Murphy
7 January, 2008

As 2008 begins a critical year for all of agriculture, AgNetwork.com reviews the goals and priorities from a select group of advocacy groups and trade associations. Some of those are entirely predictable – such as lobbying for the most favorable version of the farm bill. Others center on policy, marketing of even educational goals.

All of the organizations below work hard at a variety of initiatives all aimed at strengthening various segments of agriculture, All deserve the support – monetary, as well as political – of their members and constituents.

But can we pause for a brief editorial comment? In contacting the organizations profiled here, too many had “designated spokespeople” solely empowered to discuss the group’s priorities. And if they were unavailable, media inquiries (of any sort) get shelved until such time as the spokesperson resurfaces.

That’s a missed opportunity, but more importantly it speaks to one of the most neglected aspects of running an organization that interfaces with the media: internal communications. When the folks answering the phones or responding to emails are unwilling or unable – doesn’t matter which – to verbalize the group’s mission, or its key goals, that’s a red flag.

Should receptionists be able to articulate a group’s top priorities? Yes. They’re your de facto spokespeople. Should office managers, entry-level staff, even temporary interns be aware of what they’re working for and to what mission their efforts are supposed to contribute? Absolutely.

Unfortunately, the mindset among some advocacy groups and trade associations – and I can say this because I’ve been there – is that we have spokespeople, and we have staff. The former are tasked with articulating the group’s goals; the rest of the organization is on a need-to-know basis.

And too often, it’s presumed that they don’t need to know.

Read more…