Beef Production in the 21st Century
14/08/13 05:30
The image of the idyllic family farm where the labor is all provided by immediate family members, the amount of land is relatively small, and the family struggles against odds to survive is not quite an accurate picture of the family farms I know. To make it in the world of farming and ranching in Western South Dakota you have to be a good at business, not adverse to handling large amounts of money, astute in the appropriate use of technology, and willing to work very long hours for tight wages. It is a tough market, but some families are making it through a combination of educated knowledge of production techniques and markets and a close relationship with a banker. Most of the family farms and ranches with which I am familiar are significantly larger and require a much larger cash flow than was the case a few decades ago. In our neck of the woods the average age of a rancher is quite high in part because the cost of land is so high that young people simply can’t find the financial backing to get started in the business.
Many of the ranchers I know have embraced technology and modern methods in order to survive in a very competitive business. The days of simply turning the bull into a field of heifers in late spring or early summer are mostly gone on many ranches. The use of artificial insemination insures a greater rate of conception and therefore higher production. There is nothing new about AI. Ranchers have been doing that for decades. More recently have been the use of timed AI. Instead of using various methods to determine when the cow is ready for insemination, a series of hormone injections is used to synchronize the estrus and allow the animals to be managed in groups instead of individually. This is a different use of hormones than the controversial use of growth-producing hormones that is employed by some beef producers and shunned by advocates of natural foods. There is no need to go into details, but most of the beef producers that I know employ some form of AI, but also keep bulls on the ranch. After the AI procedure is completed, they turn the bull in with the cows to allow the natural process to take place and afford a higher rate of successful insemination.
That is probably more detail than you wanted to read this morning, and further detail isn’t necessary to my story. When I go to the lake to paddle, the road passes through an area of open pasture. Often the cattle are back up the draws and away from the road, but for most of the past week, they’ve been down near the road. So far as I know they escaped collision with motorcycles during the rally. It is a caution for drivers, especially at night. An Angus cow can be hard to spot on a dark night. These cattle have at least one Charolais Bull in with them. These top bulls don’t come cheap. The best of the bread has been known to sell for upwards of $12,000. That means that a collision between a bull and a car rivals the price of a collision between two cars in terms of property damage and insurance claims. I drive carefully whether or not the cattle are in sight. I’d like to leave the bull safely behind each trip I make.
Ranchers enjoy the natural cycles of the year and the processes of their animals. Even though the market and economics dictate the use of modern technologies, most of the ranchers I know prefer the natural ways of producing food for humans to eat.
So I am having trouble envisioning a world where the human population grows so big that we are forced to eat meat that is produced in the laboratory. Recently, a $330,000 genetically engineered hamburger was cooked and eaten in London. The synthetic burger was made up of thousands of strips of artificial muscle and fat grown from stem cells. It was cooked and eaten at a press conference in London. The burger was died with beet juice to give it a more beef-like color and flavored with breadcrumbs, caramel and saffron. One report stated that Google co-founder Sergey Brin financed the effort. $330,000 for a hamburger might not be out of his financial means, but it is a high price for an alternative to traditional meat. Like most technological innovations it is expected that the price will go down once mass production is instituted.
The potential impact on agriculture is huge. About 70% of agriculture worldwide is in the production of meat for human consumption. Ranchers, who have embraced many modern technologies, are not going to embrace a way of life that is devoid of open spaces, live animals, and working outdoors. The people who earn their living in laboratories are significantly different than those who work outdoors in all kinds of weather.
I’m reserving my judgment for now. I’m not enthusiastic about laboratory-grown meat. We purchase most of our meat from local producers. I like knowing the folks who grow my food. I like seeing the bull on my drive to the lake and watching the calves in the spring. I like living in ranch country and getting to know the good people who care about and care for the land.
On the other hand, I know that there are too many hungry people in the world and that we need to be willing to invest in new ways of thinking to produce enough food for all of those people. For now the problem seems to be more distribution than production. We can produce enough food, but we aren’t getting it to the people who need it. When we can grow corn to fuel our cars while people are starving for lack of food, there is some problem in the system.
For now, I’m grateful that the bull isn’t out of a job yet.
Many of the ranchers I know have embraced technology and modern methods in order to survive in a very competitive business. The days of simply turning the bull into a field of heifers in late spring or early summer are mostly gone on many ranches. The use of artificial insemination insures a greater rate of conception and therefore higher production. There is nothing new about AI. Ranchers have been doing that for decades. More recently have been the use of timed AI. Instead of using various methods to determine when the cow is ready for insemination, a series of hormone injections is used to synchronize the estrus and allow the animals to be managed in groups instead of individually. This is a different use of hormones than the controversial use of growth-producing hormones that is employed by some beef producers and shunned by advocates of natural foods. There is no need to go into details, but most of the beef producers that I know employ some form of AI, but also keep bulls on the ranch. After the AI procedure is completed, they turn the bull in with the cows to allow the natural process to take place and afford a higher rate of successful insemination.
That is probably more detail than you wanted to read this morning, and further detail isn’t necessary to my story. When I go to the lake to paddle, the road passes through an area of open pasture. Often the cattle are back up the draws and away from the road, but for most of the past week, they’ve been down near the road. So far as I know they escaped collision with motorcycles during the rally. It is a caution for drivers, especially at night. An Angus cow can be hard to spot on a dark night. These cattle have at least one Charolais Bull in with them. These top bulls don’t come cheap. The best of the bread has been known to sell for upwards of $12,000. That means that a collision between a bull and a car rivals the price of a collision between two cars in terms of property damage and insurance claims. I drive carefully whether or not the cattle are in sight. I’d like to leave the bull safely behind each trip I make.
Ranchers enjoy the natural cycles of the year and the processes of their animals. Even though the market and economics dictate the use of modern technologies, most of the ranchers I know prefer the natural ways of producing food for humans to eat.
So I am having trouble envisioning a world where the human population grows so big that we are forced to eat meat that is produced in the laboratory. Recently, a $330,000 genetically engineered hamburger was cooked and eaten in London. The synthetic burger was made up of thousands of strips of artificial muscle and fat grown from stem cells. It was cooked and eaten at a press conference in London. The burger was died with beet juice to give it a more beef-like color and flavored with breadcrumbs, caramel and saffron. One report stated that Google co-founder Sergey Brin financed the effort. $330,000 for a hamburger might not be out of his financial means, but it is a high price for an alternative to traditional meat. Like most technological innovations it is expected that the price will go down once mass production is instituted.
The potential impact on agriculture is huge. About 70% of agriculture worldwide is in the production of meat for human consumption. Ranchers, who have embraced many modern technologies, are not going to embrace a way of life that is devoid of open spaces, live animals, and working outdoors. The people who earn their living in laboratories are significantly different than those who work outdoors in all kinds of weather.
I’m reserving my judgment for now. I’m not enthusiastic about laboratory-grown meat. We purchase most of our meat from local producers. I like knowing the folks who grow my food. I like seeing the bull on my drive to the lake and watching the calves in the spring. I like living in ranch country and getting to know the good people who care about and care for the land.
On the other hand, I know that there are too many hungry people in the world and that we need to be willing to invest in new ways of thinking to produce enough food for all of those people. For now the problem seems to be more distribution than production. We can produce enough food, but we aren’t getting it to the people who need it. When we can grow corn to fuel our cars while people are starving for lack of food, there is some problem in the system.
For now, I’m grateful that the bull isn’t out of a job yet.