GRASS-FED BEEF-EVER INCREASING CONSUMER DEMAND

From time to time consumers are enamored by new trends in product development and generally these are mostly considered as fads unless the patronage grows consistently to establish a new line of industry with lasting impact. For example organic food movement or local foods preference or slow foods movement all started in a small way and they have now established them selves as viable businesses on their own. Similarly Atkins Diet, South Beach Diet and other similar movements started to deal with weight control were once some what popular but have since faded away for which reasons may be many. Now comes another consumer driven business alternative in the form of Grass-fed beef which is supposed to be tastier besides being more nutritious. Probably the main stream meat industry will have to blame itself for creating a strong competitor because of some of its operational practices considered unhealthy by the consumer community. Here is a look at this nascent industry in the US which seems to be posing a serious challenge to the conventional captive system of raising the animals feeding chemicals, hormones, antibiotics etc, frowned upon by the consumers.    

"It's expanded dramatically," said Alan Williams, a grass-fed beef producer and member of the Pasture Project, an effort to get more conventional producers in the Midwest switching to pasture-based systems. "In the late 1990s there were only 100 producers. Now there are more than 2,000. The market has grown from being $2 million to $3 million to over $2.5 billion in retail value." Most cattle raised in the U.S. are sent to feedlots, in Kansas and Nebraska mostly, where the animals are fattened and "finished" on a diet of corn and other grains. This feedlot system has enabled the country to develop its massive beef industry cheaply, efficiently and with less manpower. Cattle ranchers contend that a wholesale, or even partial, transition to a grass-based system would be impractical and would drive up costs. In recent years, however, critics of the feedlot system say the industry's growth has come at too high a cost for the environment, for human health and for the animals themselves. About 40% of the country's corn now goes to livestock, helping make corn the most grown, and most valuable, crop in the country. But corn production is nitrogen-intensive, and critics say that run-off from nitrogen fertilizer has contributed to polluted waterways, most notably the growing "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, cattle's corn-centric diets have contributed to fattier, less-nutritious beef that is higher in cholesterol and lower in good fatty acids, some say. Because the cost of that beef is relatively low, consumers can afford to eat more of it, often in the form of fast-food burgers. "Basically, it comes down to time," said Patricia Whisnant, president of the American Grassfed Assn., and a Missouri producer whose Rain Crow Ranch is among the largest grass-fed beef operations in the country. "You take an animal off of pasture, you give him antibiotics and corn, you're looking at harvesting that animal in 12 to 14 months. On grass, you're looking at 24 months, and more likely 28." Altogether, these factors appear to be getting the attention of consumers who are willing to pay a premium for grass-fed beef. Producers and retailers are responding. Until recently, most grass-fed beef was sold directly by the producer to the consumer, who often arranges to buy a whole side of beef through a special arrangement. Some grass-fed beef is also sold directly through buyers clubs".

This reminds one of the parallel movement which was started some years ago to force the poultry farms to change their practices involving raising of the birds in cages packed fully without allowing them any movement. To day there are new guidelines emerging that requires poultry farms to change their operations drastically to meet with standards that ensure reasonable growing environment to the birds. Probably the current trend in the consumer attitude favoring grass-fed beef may also become to morrow's industry standard.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

GM BERMUDA GRASS-GENERATING CYANIDE GAS?

In the midst of the controversy surrounding the safety of GM crops comes the news about the death of a few cattle after ingesting a GM version of Bermuda grass in Texas, USA'. No doubt this is going to vitiate further the debate about the safety of GM crops in, giving some ammunition to the antagonists of genetically modified foods. According to bare details available on this episode a herd of 15 cattle died within a short while after being allowed to graze on a land planted with GM Bermuda grass and it was revealed that the death occurred due to cyanide poisoning. Whether cyanide release is due to genetic modification or other factors is still not clear. According to rangers 2% loss of their cattle is common during grazing due to many reasons and this isolated case should not be viewed as some thing unique. Here is a report about this incidence which will possibly ignite the passion surrounding  the issue of GM technology and its safety. 

"A form of genetically modified grass is being cited as the likely culprit in the sudden death of a herd of cattle in Central Texas, according to CBS News. Preliminary tests revealed that the grass, an altered form of Bermuda grass known as Tifton 85, had mysteriously begun producing cyanide gas. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are conducting further tests to determine if some sort of mutation caused the grass to suddenly begin giving off the deadly gas. The cattle died roughly three weeks ago while grazing on a ranch in Elgin, Texas, about 20 miles east of Austin. According to the ranch's owner, Jerry Abel, the cattle began howling shortly after being let out to graze one day. Fifteen of his eighteen cattle died, all of them in a matter of hours. Abel told CBS that he'd been using the modified grass for about fifteen years with no problems, until now. And he's not the only one with a suddenly toxic pasture. Other farmers in the area who use the same modified grass have also found cyanide on their properties, though as yet no other cattle have died. Genetically modified crops have long been used to feed both humans and farm-raised animals. In recent years, however, activists concerned about potentially detrimental health impacts from GMOs have begun pushing for increased regulation and labeling of food products that contain modified crops. In California, voters will decide in November on a ballot measure that would require companies to label all foods containing GMOs. Such a law would be the first of its kind in the nation".

Before coming to the conclusion that the genetic modification was responsible for the release of cyanide by the grass, it should be borne in mind that there are over 1500 plants in nature containing cyanide compounds in combination with sugar and lipids. These include Johnson grass, cassava roots, apricots, apple seeds, peach seeds, bamboo shoots etc and as long as the food is cooked they do not pose any danger to life. Besides cyanides at low concentrations pass through the body without any harm. Cyanide gas at 270 ppm in the air or 200 mg in food ingested can be fatal. Among the grass Sorghum grass is considered poisonous and hence avoided by rangers. Generation of cyanide gas during early vegetative growth is known to occur while during drought times cyanide levels can build up over the grass. Against such a background it may be premature to indict the GM grass for the death of cattle in the above episode.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com