Let’s Not Follow Chicken Across the Road

A typical comment made when first trying some type of exotic meat: “Tastes like chicken.”

But most foods don’t really taste like chicken. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, there’s something else that doesn’t taste like chicken these days: chicken.

The Journal reported last week“Chicken companies spent decades breeding birds to grow rapidly and develop large breast muscles.  Now the industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with the consequences ranging from squishy fillets known as ‘spaghetti meat,’ because they pull apart easily, to leathery ones known as ‘woody breast’.”

I don’t generally recommend that bison ranchers learn from the poultry industry, but I think there’s a major lesson for us in this story.

Commodity livestock industries have fixated for years on growing the heaviest animals possible in the shortest time from birth to harvest. No sector has mastered this goal better than the broiler chicken industry. Fifty years ago, the average broiler chicken took about nine weeks to grow to a market weight of 3.5 lbs. Continuous tinkering with genetics, feed and other factors have shaved that time by a fourth, while nearly doubling the weight of a market-ready chicken.

On top of that, the chicken has been continuously modified to meet changing consumer demand. Breast meat in high demand? Let’s create chickens that would put Dolly Parton to shame. Customers discovered the great taste of chicken wings? Let’s create flightless birds with bigger, meatier wings.

Bison ranchers, too, are  concerned about the growth rate of the slaughter animals in our herds. It’s a natural component of economic sustainability. After all, every additional day an animal spends on grass or grain is a cost of production. But there’s a strong difference in optimizing growth potential and pushing that growth potential beyond natural limits. At some point, Mother Nature is going to say: Enough.

I thought about that this week, as I looked over the latest monthly USDA wholesale bison price report. The average reported carcass weight on young bulls last month was 695 lbs. Two years ago, the average bull carcass weighed in at 600 lbs. That’s a 14 percent increase in carcass weights over a two-year period. Unlike the chicken industry, bison producers haven’t likely shortened the time required to reach that heavier carcass. But it’s fair to ask if the meat coming off of a 695 lb. carcass is going to have the same eating quality as the meat from a lighter animal.

There’s another factor to consider as well.

According to USDA, 19,959 young bison bulls were processed under federal inspection in 2018. Let’s assume those carcasses averaged 695 lbs. If so, those 19,959 bulls supplied a total of 13.87 million lbs. of carcass weight for our customers.

If those carcasses had averaged 600 lbs., 3,160 additional young bulls would have been required to produce the same amount of carcass weight. In other words, our marketers could supply a stable market by purchasing 3,160 fewer heavy young bull carcasses from ranchers. Oh, and the meat would not likely be as high quality as that coming from the lighter animals.

Years ago, the prevailing voices in the bison business made a declaration that we should never turn our animals into a mass commodity. That was sage advice. Our customers have demonstrated that they are willing to pay a premium price for great tasting meat produced in harmony with nature, and with a concern for the integrity of the animal.

While the chicken industry spends millions of dollars to figure out how to once again engineer super-sized birds to create something that tastes like chicken, let’s just use a little common sense and listen to Mother Nature…and our customers.

It’s time to lighten up.


Bison at Forefront of Eco-Marketing at Expo West

Natural Products Expo West, the nation’s largest trade show for natural and organic products taking place in California this week, is a cacophony of competing marketing claims.

The nearly 80,000 retailers, product buyers, marketers and others wandering through the 3,000 exhibits packed inside Anaheim Convention Center are steadily bombarded with claims regarding “no GMOs,” “Gluten Free,” “Humanely Raised,” and more.

The ecological impact of food production is a major theme woven throughout this trade show and the accompanying educational sessions. No fewer than four major workshops and seminars focused on regenerative agriculture. In the exhibit halls, many products that have traditionally sported the USDA Organic certification logo, are now adding an additional “Regenerative Organic Certification” label.

Of course, there are a number of relatively new exhibitors promoting their brand of meat-tasting whatever that is made from pea protein, soy, or even lab-grown cells. These booths universally had banners and signs claiming their products as eco-friendly. These were generally simple phrases like “clean protein,” “better for the environment,” and so on.

That’s why I found it interesting that the primary exhibitors at Expo providing in-depth information about how their products benefited the environment were companies that sell meat…specifically, bison.

One booth by Native American Natural Foods, makers of Tanka Bar, had a photograph of a bison. Arrows pointed to the hoofs, hair and other features, with text explaining how each of those features promoted healthy soils and biodiversity. In another aisle, Patagonia Provisions had a film loop informing attendees about the ecological benefits of bison, wild-caught salmon, and other sustainably raised proteins. Sill elsewhere, the people staffing EPIC Provisions booth liberally handed out both a brief pamphlet as well as a 112-page Impact Journal with information on the commitment ranchers have to the environment.

In the main exhibit hall, EPIC’s parent company, General Mills, hosted a booth largely devoted to their initiative to bring 1 million acres of land into regenerative production. That booth had a high-end version of the rainfall soil erosion simulator that many of us saw at NBA’s last summer conference, and at various USDA NRCS workshops through the years. The point of that simulator: healthy grasslands are vital to stopping soil erosion.

While it is a bit unsettling to see some companies making unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of their products, it was heartening to see the commitment that many of our marketers are making to providing real, in-depth information.

Keep up the good work.

 


Reason, Not Rhetoric Needed in Green Discussion

I’m deeply immersed in public policy but do my best to steer clear of politics. After all, the National Bison Association has cultivated strong personal relationships during the past two decades with leaders on both sides of the political aisle. Bison is our National Mammal because Republicans and Democrats in Congress worked together over a four-year period. More recently, three Democratic and two Republican Senators sent a joint letter to USDA and FDA urging support for honest labeling of water buffalo in the marketplace.

Just as important, liberals and conservatives alike across the country have embraced the great taste and nutritional benefits of bison.

So, it’s with a bit of trepidation that I even mention three words generating a firestorm across the country: Green New Deal.

In barely a month, this phrase has emerged as a political lightning rod, with politicians, pundits and others speculating whether ice cream and hamburgers will disappear as flatulating cows are outlawed under a tidal wave of sweeping new laws and regulations.

Please: let’s not hunker down in silos of hardened opinions. An open, honest discussion about our role in climate change should be welcomed among the agriculture community. Rather than girding ourselves to argue over farting cows, let’s educate the public on the environmental benefits of bison and other grazing animals.

Bison ranchers are well positioned to stand at the forefront of that effort.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, grasslands comprise nearly 40 percent of the earth’s landmass. Closer to home, grasslands dominate most areas west of the Mississippi River, stretching from northern Mexico to the Yukon Flats. Those grasslands are  North America’s version of the Amazon Rain Forest, where  native vegetation filters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and returns it to the soil.

Bison ranchers know that grasslands collapse without grazing ruminants. Our herds rebuild soil and provide wildlife habitat and open space, in addition to addressing the CO2 equation.

New scientific research is providing clear evidence that petri-dish grown fake meat comes with heavy environmental baggage. One study published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems  last month documents the amount of energy required to produce meat-tasting protein in the laboratory. 

With a blizzard of misinformation and fear swirling around the discussions of climate and the environment, it’s time to take a lesson from our herds: Keep our heads down and face the storm.

Reason, not rhetoric, is on our side. Let’s sit down to discuss our commitment to environmental stewardship with anyone willing to listen. I’ll even buy the bison burger and ice cream sundae while we talk.


Bison Build Bridges with Urban Students


The agricultural community has long been concerned about the lack of understanding or concern from their city cousins. A common refrain among agricultural producers and others in Rural America is that “city people just don’t care about us.”

The National Bison Association’s recent Junior Judging competition at the National Western Stock Show provided some refreshing evidence that perhaps—just perhaps—this stereotype isn’t accurate.

Junior Judging is a competition in which students compete to determine which animals have the best body conformation that will result in top quality meat production. These types of judging events have long been a staple for FFA and 4-H students honing their skills in preparation for a career in livestock production. Selecting the right animals is the cornerstone of building a successful ranching enterprise.

A few years back, the National Bison Association launched a junior judging competition during its Gold Trophy Show at the National Western Stock Show to provide those students with better skills if they were considering a future in bison production.  

Since its founding, FFA students from largely rural areas competed for prizes and scholarship money provided by the National Buffalo Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Buffalo Association, and Rocky Mountain Natural Meats.

This year, those rural students were joined by a contingent from the Jefferson County, Colorado 4-H program. Jefferson County is a suburban area on the fringes of Denver, where housing developments and office parks are gobbling up most of the remaining agricultural acreage.  Perhaps the most notable herd of bison in Jefferson County is one owned by the City and County of Denver along Interstate 70.

Yet, here were students from these suburban schools walking alongside their rural counterparts, clutching notebooks, and peering into the pens to assess the qualities of the bison selected for judging.  They took detailed notes at the pens, and then stood before a panel of bison professionals to state their reasons on how they scored the animals. These students were as serious about their efforts as were those youth who have spent their entire lives around livestock.

And, one of the Jefferson County Teams even captured an award at the competition.

The experience was captured by a videographer with the Jefferson County School District, wand has been posted on YouTube here:  

Watching these young people from Jefferson County relate their inaugural experience in bison judging illustrates that the chasm between youth in rural and urban America isn’t nearly as vast as some would have us believe.

 


Hybrid Vigor? Look Somewhere Else, Please

Ever have one on those moments when you read an article that makes you think: “What the ******* are they talking about????”

Yeah, I had one of those moments this week.

The article, published in a national political news website, was entitled FDA Doubles Down on Failed Biotech Regulation.

There were a number of items I took exception to in the article, but what made me choke on my coffee was the following statement extolling one of the “proven” benefits of genetic modification:

“A relatively recent (20th century) new food animal, the “beefalo,” a cow–bison (buffalo) hybrid, combines the superior hardiness, foraging ability, calving ease, and low-fat meat of the bison with the fertility, milking ability, and convenient handling of the cow.”

Superior hardiness? Foraging ability? Fertility? Convenient handling? What the ******* are they talking about????

Those of us in the bison business have been dealing with the controversy surrounding cattle genetics in our animals for a long time. Yes, the handful of ranchers who helped save bison from extinction more than a century ago were looking for a way to improve the hardiness of the European beef cattle they were introducing into the native grasslands of North America.

Then, they noticed that the bison stragglers that they had gathered up survived the Great Blizzard of 1888 that decimated their cattle herds. They began to selectively crossbreed their cattle with some of those bison to create a winter-hardy cattalo.

That’s what they wanted. What they got instead was a hybrid with first-generation sterile bulls, cows with high calf losses, and overall general health problems. Hardly a testimony to hybrid vigor.

The beefalo movement is a more modern attempt at that crossbreeding. Beefalo is a specific cross of 3/8 bison and 5/8 beef cow.

I’ll let the beefalo folks defend the “superior” traits of their animals. But, in terms of consumer acceptance, I’ll just ask: Have the authors of this article looked for beefalo meat in a local supermarket lately?

Prompted by the cattle gene introgression controversy, many modern ranchers are conducting DNA testing on their herds and culling animals with any significant cattle gene introgression. They aren’t doing it just for PR purposes. They’ve found that bison without cattle genes are more efficient grazers and perform better on the variety of grasses and forbs across the North American ecosystem.

The authors of the article are correct in asserting that mankind has been manipulating genetics in plants and animals for centuries to create new varieties with higher yields and greater vigor. I’ll accept that fact.

But the authors also need to accept the fact that sometimes Mother Nature does such a good job in perfecting a species of animal that the best thing we can do as managers is to leave well enough alone.


Meat Without the Animal? Not a Great Idea

It takes quite a bit to shock me these days, but a recent quote by the CEO of one of the world’s largest meat producing and processing companies set me back on my heels.

“If we can grow the meat without the animal, why wouldn’t we?,” this CEO said in a recent interview with Bloomberg Businessweek.

Pretty shocking statement for someone at the pinnacle of the meat and poultry production and processing business, right? Well…perhaps not quite so shocking.  

This CEO, mind you, two years ago took the helm of a company that played a major role over the past half century in the industrialization of the chicken industry, and then the hog industry. Manufacturing meat without the involvement of animals may simply be the next step in that industrialized journey.

As the contract production system swept through the chicken industry in the 1960’s, and then the pork industry in the 1990’s, independent chicken and hog producers virtually disappeared from the landscape. Today’s poultry and pork growers still provide the capital and labor, but the animals under their care are owned by the processor. The farmers simply receive a fee based upon their ability to produce animals that meet the processors’ specifications and schedule. Animal husbandry has been transformed into a type of assembly-line production system.

So, perhaps it’s not surprising that the CEO of a meat manufacturing company would see a financial advantage in producing that meat without the animals…or the farmers and ranchers…or the workers in the processing plants. George Jetson, here we come.

Let’s look at that statement once again: “If we can grow the meat without the animal, why wouldn’t we?” Set aside for a moment the disruption this concept presents to agricultural producers and meat processing workers. There are other reasons to dispute “Why wouldn’t we?”

Start with the environment.

Last time I looked, petri dishes don’t graze on native grasslands. That means that they don’t provide the symbiotic relationship that stirs the soil, helps plant the grass seeds or fertilize the plants. Vats of cultured cells don’t help build healthy soils to fill a critical role in the carbon cycle that evolved through the eons. In fact, removing animals from those ecosystems will lead to more conversion of native rangelands and pastures to plowed fields, with a corresponding loss of wildlife habitat.

Livestock production is increasingly targeted as a cause of global warming. Some of that criticism is justified…largely because this CEO’s predecessors transformed much of animal agriculture from a symbiotic relationship with the environment into an industrialized manufacturing process.

Don’t get me wrong…we don’t operate in a purist world. Feed rations with harvested grains and finishing facilities are tools that many bison ranchers and other livestock producers utilize to optimize their use of their available resource base.  But removing grazing animals from the equation altogether would have catastrophic consequences on the grasslands that comprise roughly one-third of the North American ecosystem.

Roughly a century ago, the founder of the organic agriculture movement, Sir Albert Howard, said, “Never does Nature separate the animal and vegetable worlds. This is a mistake she cannot endure, and of all the errors which modern agriculture has committed this abandonment of mixed husbandry has been the most fatal.” 

A future of meat without animals represents an error in modern agriculture that will bring significant ecological and social consequences. 


Water Buffalo in Bison Clothing is Deceptive by any Measure

Some three decades ago, the small cluster of bison ranchers—or “buffalo ranchers” as many called themselves—sprinkled around the United States and Canada were privy to one of the best-kept secrets in the American food marketplace. That secret: The animals under their care produced an absolutely delicious, healthy meat.

They were convinced that, once this secret was revealed, shoppers would rush to their doorsteps clamoring for bison meat. They expanded their herds, bought more land, and built new meat processing plants to prepare for that demand.

Then, they waited. And waited.

They waited right until the bison market melted down because unsold bison meat filled the freezers. The public doesn’t magically discover something as great as deliciously healthy bison meat. Introducing the great qualities of bison to the public was going to involve a lot of hard work.

The National Bison Association, bison meat marketers, regional associations, and individual ranchers rolled up their shirtsleeves and got to work. 

The National Bison Association began promoting the flavor, nutritional and environmentally friendly advantages of bison meat. Commercial bison marketers began courting natural food retail chains and restaurants to add bison meat to their offerings. Media mogul-turned bison rancher Ted Turner teamed up with famed restaurateur George McKerrow to launch Ted’s Montana Grill, a new dining concept featuring a selection of quality bison offerings.  Small gate-to-plate ranchers enticed customers with bison meat samples on toothpicks handed out at farmers’ markets and craft fairs across the country.

 Slowly, their perseverance began to pay off as a growing segment of the American public embraced bison.

Since 2011, bison ranchers and marketers of all sizes have enjoyed profitability and stability. That success is built upon a commitment to provide our customers with high quality meat from responsibly raised herds.

Now, that trust is being threatened by a sneak attack from imported water buffalo.

You read that right: water buffalo.

In recent weeks, some retail outlets have started featuring packages of ground meat labeled simply as “Wild Buffalo – Free Range.” The U.S. based distributor of this product is a subsidiary of an Australian meat company.

No doubt about it, these products are being packaged and marketed to mislead customers into believing they are buying North American-raised bison meat.

After all, Americans have been calling our animals buffalo for well over 300 years. Buffalo Soldiers, the Buffalo Nickel, and Buffalo Bill Cody are all examples of the deeply embedded association Americans have with that word used to describe bison.

Water buffalo importers are trying to sneak their products into the market by exploiting that image. It has to be stopped, NOW.

The National Bison Association has launched an on-line petition to gather support from ranchers and shoppers alike to push the USDA and FDA to change the food labeling rules to require that any water buffalo products or ingredients sold in the food marketplace be required to be listed as “water buffalo,” and not just as “buffalo.” To sign that petition, simply go to this link, and add your name.

Three years ago, the National Bison Association asked the USDA Food Safety and Inspections Service and the FDA to update the food labeling policy rules to require that language. To date nothing has been done, so a delegation of bison ranchers is headed to Washington, D.C. in September to meet with top officials of both agencies.

This isn’t the first time that water buffalo has come into our marketplace dressed in bison clothing. Over the past couple of years, some pet food products have been using water buffalo, simply labeled as “buffalo,” in products that are labeled “High Prairie Formula,” or “Backwoods Recipe.” Fortunately, the officials that regulate pet food are hard at work coming up with an approach to require more accurate labeling.

It’s time that our federal agencies require the same for human food products. Please sign our petition today. And, for more information on this issue, click here for the NBA report on water buffalo in the U.S. marketplace.


Help Us Stop Deceptive Labeling in Pet Products

The National Bison Association needs your help in correcting the existing pet food labeling loopholes that allows companies to deceive their customers into believing that the water buffalo in their products is actually North American bison.

The growing demand for bison ingredients in pet products is adding important value to the carcass price paid to producers and is vital in helping us “market the whole animal.” However, several companies are using water buffalo, and are simply labeling the ingredient as buffalo. One company uses water buffalo as their primary ingredient, then adds three percent bison and markets their product as “Made with Roasted Bison.” 

The Ingredients Definition Committee of the American Association of Feed Control Officials will be discussing this issue at the AAFCO annual meeting July 30 – Aug. 1. The model regulations established by AAFCO serve as the basis for state and federal regulators in enforcing pet food products. 

Listed below is the contact information for all of the members of the AAFCO Ingredients Definition Committee. If one or more of those officials are from your state, please contact them immediately. 

Here’s what to include:

  • One sentence introducing yourself and your leadership position in the bison business.
  • A short statement noting that the pet food industry is increasingly seeking bison ingredients for their treats and food products.
  • Because of the tight supply of bison ingredients, some companies are using water buffalo, and simply listing it as “buffalo.”
  • In the United States, the overwhelming majority of citizens interpret the word “buffalo” to mean bison.
  • Pet food ingredient definitions should assure that the pet food customer is not subject to labeling terms that are deceptive or misleading.

Here is the full list of Committee members:

CALIFORNIA

Kent Kitade
PO Box 22101
Sacramento, CA 95822-0101
United States
916-207-0928 (Phone)
kentkitade@gmail.com

 

IDAHO

Nathan Price
Ag. Progrm Specialist
Idaho State Department of Agriculture
PO Box 790
Boise, ID 83701
United States
(208) 332-8624 (Phone)
Nathan.Price@ISDA.idaho.gov

 

INDIANA

Brett Groves
Chief Inspector/Auditor
Office of Indiana State Chemist
175 S University St
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063
United States
(765) 494-1552 (Phone)
(765) 494-4331 (FAX)
grovesb@purdue.edu
www.isco.purdue.edu

 

KANSAS

Ken Bowers
Public Service Ad II
Kansas Department of Agricultural
Dairy and Seed Safety
1320 Research Park Dr.
Manhattan, KS 66502
United States
(785) 564-6685 (Phone)
(785) 862-2460 (FAX)
ken.bowers@ks.gov
www.ksda.gov

 

KENTUCKY

Alan Harrison
Director, Feed and Milk Programs
University of Kentucky
Division of Regulatory Services
Room 103, Regulatory Services Building
Lexington, KY 40546-0275
United States
(859) 257-5887 (Phone)
alan.harrison@uky.edu

 

LOUISIANNA

Mark LeBlanc
Director, Ag Chemistry
LSU AgCenter/LDAF
Department of Ag. Chemistry
Room 102 Ag. Chemistry Building
LSU Highland Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-0001
United States
(225) 342-5812 (Phone)
(225) 237-5559 (FAX)
mark_l@ldaf.state.la.us
www.ldaf.state.la.us

 

 

MINNESOTA

Brett Boswell**
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Dairy and Food Inspection Division
625 Robert Street North
Saint Paul, MN 55155-2538
United States
(651) 201-6212 (Phone)
brett.boswell@state.mn.us

 

** Brett is chairing the discussion group on this issue. Any communication to him should thank him for his work to bring this to the attention of AAFCO.

 

Dan King
Compliance Officer
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Dairy and Food Inspection Division
625 Robert Street North
Saint Paul, MN 55155-2538
United States
(651) 201-6003 (Phone)
(651) 201-6119 (FAX)
Daniel.King@state.mn.us

 

MISSOURI

Stan Cook
Program Administrator
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Feed, Seed, & Treated Timber 
Plant Industries Division
115 Constitution Dr.
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630
United States
(573) 751-5501 (Phone)
(573) 751-5500 (FAX)
stan.cook@mda.mo.gov
http://mda.mo.gov

 

Jacob Fleig
Program Coordinator
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Feed and Seed
Plant Industries Division
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630
United States
573-526-4677 (Phone)
jacob.fleig@mda.mo.gov

 

MONTANA

Bob Church
Field Operations Manager
Montana Department of Agriculture
PO Box 200201
Helena, MT 59620-0201
United States
(406) 444-5410 (Phone)
(406) 444-9466 (FAX)
bchurch@mt.gov

 

NEBRASKA

Steve Gramlich
Program Manager
Nebraska Department of Agriculture
Po Box 94787
Lincoln, NE 68509-4787
United States
(402) 471-6845 (Phone)
(402) 471-6892 (FAX)
steve.gramlich@nebraska.gov

 

NORTH CAROLINA

George Ferguson
Feed Administrator
North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
Food & Drug Protection Division
NC Animal Feed Program
1070 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1070
United States
(919) 733-7366 (Phone)
george.ferguson@ncagr.gov

 

NORTH DAKOTA

Dave Phillips
Feed Specialist
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
600 E Boulevard Ave Dept 602
Livestock Development Division
Bismarck, ND 58505-0020
United States
(701) 328-1501 (Phone)
(701) 328-4567 (FAX)
davephillips@nd.gov
www.nd.gov/ndda

 

 

OREGON

Richard Ten Eyck**
Feed Safety Specialist
Oregon Department of Agriculture
635 Capitol St NE Ste 100
Feed Program
Salem, OR 97301-2568
United States
503-986-4691 (Phone)
330-247-2872 (FAX)
rteneyck@oda.state.or.us
http://www.oregon.gov/oda/ahid/index.shtml

 

** Richard is chair of the Ingredients Definitions Committee.

 

PENNSYLVANIA

Erin Bubb
Chief, Division of Agronomic & Regional Services
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Division of Agronomic and Regional Svc
Bureau of Plant Industry
2301 N Cameron St
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
United States
(717) 772-5215 (Phone)
(717) 783-3275 (FAX)
ebubb@pa.gov
www.agriculture.state.pa.us

 

David Dressler
Agronomic Program Specialist
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Division of Agronomic and Regional Svc
Bureau of Plant Industry
2301 N. Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
United States
(717) 772-5216 (Phone)
davdressle@pa.govDavid Dressler 
Harrisburg, PA

 

TEXAS

James Embry
Office of the Texas State Chemist
PO Box 3160
Texas A&M University System
College Station, TX 77841-3160
United States
(936) 245-9949 (Phone)
jae@otsc.tamu.edu

 

 

 

WASHINGTON

 

Ali Kashani
Program Manager
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Consumer Svcs. Division
P.O. Box 42560
Olympia, WA 98504-2589
United States
(360) 902-2028 (Phone)
(360) 902-2078 (FAX)
akashani@agr.wa.gov
www.agr.wa.gov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canadian Members

Jennifer Kormos
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive
Ottawa, ON Canada
(613) 773-7535 (Phone)
(613) 773-7565 (FAX)
Jennifer.Kormos@inspection.gc.ca

 

Laura Scott
Coordinator, Regulatory Development for Animal Feed Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Policy and Programs Branch 
59 Camelot Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9
Canada
613-773-7527 (Phone)
laura.scott@inspection.gc.ca

 

 FDA Committee Members

Mika Alewynse
Team Leader
FDA/Office of Foods (OF)/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
7519 Standish Place, HFV-228
Nutrition and Labeling Team
CVM/OSC/DAF
Rockville, MD 20855-2792
United States
240 402 5843 (Phone)
(240) 453-6882 (FAX)
mika.alewynse@fda.hhs.gov

 

Charlotte Conway
Animal Scientist
FDA
7519 Standish Place, HFV 228
Derwood, MD 20855-7707
United States
(240) 402-6768 (Phone)
(240) 453-6882 (FAX)
charlotte.conway@fda.hhs.gov

 

Shannon Jordre
Consumer Safety Officer
FDA/Office of Foods (OF)/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
7519 Standish Pl
Cvm/Osc/Dc, Hfv-232
Rockville, MD 20855-2792
United States
240-402-5607 (Phone)
(240) 276-9241 (FAX)
shannon.jordre@fda.hhs.gov

 

Becky Muir
FDA/Office of Foods (OF)/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
7519 Standish Pl
Rockville, MD 20855-2792
United States
240-276-8693 (Phone)
becky.muir@fda.hhs.gov

 

 


Bison Producers Care: From Start to Finish

In today’s hyper-polarized world, complex issues often get lumped into simple, black-and-white perspectives. It’s either good, or it’s bad, with nothing in-between.

So it is with the finishing protocols used for bison. In recent years, intense debate has emerged over livestock finishing methods. Most of that debate has centered on cattle, but it’s starting to spill over into the world of bison as well.

Unfortunately, the debate has devolved into two simple, stark descriptions. Many in the public today have the impression that livestock are either crammed into feedlots and stuffed with grain or are produced exclusively on wide-open pastures. The phrases “grain-fed” versus “grass-fed” have become shorthand for those viewpoints.

It’s not that simple. 

Animals can be fed a grass-fed diet while in corrals or finishing facilities. Corn is a member of the grass family, so a grass-fed animal can graze in a field of green corn plants. The assumption that “grain-fed” includes a diet solely of corn is misleading because nearly all feed rations include a mixture of grains, including barley, oats, or wheat, along with alfalfa and other roughage.

The equation is more complicated with bison because we are still learning about this animal under our care.

For a start, the biology and undomesticated nature of bison make feeding and finishing bison more difficult than for most other ruminants. We also know that Mother Nature did a great job in perfecting this animal over thousands of years, so we need to be very careful in how we intervene.

When our business sprouted a few decades ago, producers largely applied cattle industry feeding practices to finish their animals. Through the years, we learned that bison are unique, and that—while there are some similarities to cattle—there are many important differences.

Today, finishing practices utilized by bison producers are as varied as the producers who utilize them.  Decisions on finishing protocols are driven by a myriad of factors, including animal health, biological rhythms, consumer expectations, available land mass, species of available grasses and forage, climate, and more. Many ranchers throughout our industry are experimenting with new practices, and then sharing their knowledge with fellow bison producers.

The National Bison Association released a report this week entitled “Different Methods, Many Reasons”. That white paper delves into the complexity of this issue, and attempts to answer the questions that journalists, policymakers and others are asking regarding why ranchers finish bison under differing methods. It’s available for download at: https://bisoncentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/DifferentMethodsManyReasons_5_2018.pdf

Nearly a century ago, the famed journalist H.L. Menken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

The world has gotten much more complex in the years since Menken penned those words. Yet, the desire for clear, simple (and wrong) answers perseveres.

Building healthy herds, maintaining vibrant pastures, and producing a delicious, nutritious product is a complex process. Responsible bison ranchers know there is no clear, simple answer. The best answer will always be a work in progress. 

That work continues.


It’s the Holiday Season in Bison Country

If red and green are the traditional colors of Christmastime, it certainly looks like the holiday season across much of bison country this month.

At the ranch where our herd grazes in eastern Colorado, and on farms and ranches across the country, brand new red-calves are bounding across rapidly greening grasslands.

It’s a season of celebration and optimism.

In Colorado, the wet snows forgot to come around last winter, but several days of spring rain have provided an explosion of grasses that supply the mothers with rich nutrition needed for their suckling calves. The herd came through winter in good shape. The new life among the herd, and in the soil, can’t help but warm the outlook for the coming months.

There is always a sense of the reality of the business of ranching as well.

Come late fall, ranchers will bring in the herd for annual roundup. At that time, some of the calves will be held back to build herds, while others will be destined to end up in the retail meat case or on a restaurant menu.

It’s a reality of the ranching business. Not the most pleasant reality, but a reality nonetheless.

Part of that reality is basic economics. Without the demand from customers, there’s no business reason to raise the animals.  We can’t afford to keep 200 pets.

But there is another reason. With apologies to the Lion King, it’s the circle of life.

Bison and other grazers are prey animals. Their role in the evolution of the ecosystem is based largely on their ability to “farm” the native grasslands around the world. Their natural grazing habits, their hoof action on the soil, and the nutrients from their manure and urine keep the grasslands healthy, and help those grasslands serve as a giant carbon trap. The digestive systems of those grazing animals have the capability to convert the cellulose in grass—which is nutritionally worthless to us—into nutritionally-rich protein that is valuable to us.

The basic social behavior of these ruminant animals is based around their role as a prey species. And humans have long been the keystone predator.

In today’s ranching world, we know that–without the harvest–there’s little reason for the new crop of calves each year.

But that part of the equation will come soon enough. For now, I’ll think about the red calves, green grass, and the new life of spring.