Necessary Steps

Since my last post, I have moved across the country, started a new job, and had a baby. With all of that going on, perhaps it’s no surprise that I have yet to find a new farm from which to buy ethical, sustainably-raised meat. Instead, we’ve been relying on Whole Foods. Through their signs and labels, Whole Foods provides its customers with information about the farming and production practices involved with their meat and, supposedly, has a higher standard than most grocery stores. Up until now, I’ve been mostly taking it on faith, and the word of the employees at the meat counter, that buying meat at Whole Foods is a better choice for the animals, environment, and workers than shopping elsewhere. Now it’s time to dig a little deeper.

Animal welfare is one of my main concerns when it comes to meat. I’d like to think that the animals I eat have only one bad day. That’s far from the case in conventional meat production. Efficiency seems to be the hallmark of the conventional approach. Part of upping efficiency is increasing the number of animals that can be kept in any given operation and strictly controlling the environment in which the animals live.

Because chicken, pigs, and cows do not typically live indoors in highly-concentrated groups, conventional farmers have to take many extra measures to keep the animals alive until they make slaughter weight. For example, when chickens are kept in crowded pens, they peck at each other, which can lead to injury and reduce their value. The solution in conventional farming is to remove the beaks of the chickens. Similarly, when pigs are confined and crowded, they express their natural desire to chew on things by nipping at their neighbors’ tails. To discourage this behavior, farmers routinely cut off the pigs’ tails, leaving only a sensitive nub. That makes it much more painful to be chewed on, causing the pigs to fight back and dissuading the pigs from chewing on each other. The idea that causing animals more pain is a better solution that simply enabling animals to behave naturally highlights the unfortunate priorities of our food system.

Similar to the animals, our environment suffers from conventional farming practices both from the monoculture cropping systems that generate animal feed and the animal operations themselves. When animals are raised in more natural conditions, where they are able to express their natural behaviors, eat the foods they evolved to consume, and contribute to the farm ecosystem, the animals and the environment benefit. A wholly integrated farm is the ideal, but there are many ways in which the lives of farm animals can be improved and are worth supporting.

The Whole Story

Whole Foods uses a tiered rating system for its chicken, pork, and beef. The ratings actually come from the Global Animal Partnership (GAP), which evaluates farms based on long lists of animal-specific metrics. The ratings go from 1 to 5+, and they are color-coded from orange to yellow to green. Higher ratings represent farms that are more animal-centered, meaning that animals are more able to express their natural behaviors. In general, Steps 1 – 3 apply to farms that are more conventional in nature (i.e. animals in enclosed, controlled environments) with many enhancements for the well-being of the animals. Steps 4 – 5+ are for farms that are pasture-centered, meaning that the animals live mostly outdoors in more appropriate environments. All of the chicken, pork, and beef sold at Whole Foods has received at least a Step 1 rating. 

Even farms with the lowest rating, Step 1, have taken significant steps to improve the welfare of their animals over conventional practice. Many common physical modifications, including tail docking (pigs) and debeaking (chickens), are not allowed even in Step 1 farms. By Step 5, no physical alterations are allowed.

Another major consideration when evaluating farms is the concentration of animals. Crowded pens and crammed cages are not allowed. At Step 1, all animals must be able to move about. Chickens must have enough space to flap their wings without touching one another, while pigs and cows must have enough space to exercise, lie down, and move freely. Cows must also spend at least 2/3 of their lives on pasture.

Antibiotics and growth hormones are also disallowed at any step, and animals can never be fed by-products of other animals. Antibiotics, particularly medications that are intended to cure diseases in humans, are frequently used in conventional animal production. In fact, their use is on the rise despite the FDA advising a ramp down. Such pervasive usage is leading to drug-resistant strains of diseases that we used to be able to treat with antibiotics. For more on this important topic, read these recent articles from Mother Jones and Scientific American. Because Whole Foods only carries GAP-rated chicken, pork, or beef, it all comes from animals raised without hormones or antibiotics. 



There are many other factors that go into the ratings evaluation, which can be found on the Global Animal Partnership website as well as in pamphlets available at Whole Foods. Meat that carries a GAP rating is clearly better in terms of animal welfare than that found at most grocery stores. I definitely feel better about buying even a Step 1 product than buying conventional meat, but I would much prefer to buy Step 3 through 5+ meat whenever possible. At the Whole Foods where I shop, there are a lot of beef products with ratings of 4 and 5. Much of it comes from Eel River Ranch in California, a Step 4 organic* farm that raises cows on pasture. There is also Step 3 and 4 chicken from Mary’s Chickens. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen over the past few months, the selection of pig products is currently limited to Step 1. While we still purchase these products, we now eat a bit more chicken and beef than pork. Some packaged products at Whole Foods are also GAP-rated, including some deli meats from Applegate Farms, evol frozen meals, and Krave jerky. You can see the full list of GAP-rated products on their website.

Although we still plan to join a farm CSA for our meat, if one is available in our new hometown, it is still good to know that we can pick up meat from our local Whole Foods without abandoning our commitment to ethical animal products. Plus, we are using our food dollars to support the GAP ratings program, which promotes better industry practices, and to show Whole Foods that we value ethically-sourced meat and the information that enables us to identify it. All that adds up to a whole lot of piece of mind.

* - A farm’s designation as certified organic is not evaluated as part of the Global Animal Partnership rating system. They are complimentary but quite different sets of metrics.

The Polyculture Project.

Conventional meat production has been (justly) criticized for the strain it puts on the environment and the deplorable conditions in which animals are kept. However, there is an alternative to conventional farming. Diversified, pasture-based farms, also called polycultures, work with the land such that the farm becomes integrated into the natural ecosystem. Multiple species of animals are raised together along with crops that can be used for animal feed and for human consumption. Overall, this type of farming provides many environmental benefits and a higher quality of life for the animals than conventional farms.

A criticism of polyculture farming is that it isn’t productive enough to meet the needs of our population, and thus, meat could only ever be a small part of a sustainable food system. Although often repeated, I have rarely seen this statement quantified, which has led me to ask the following question.

How much polyculture farmland would it take to produce enough meat to feed the US population?

Answering this question requires two types of data: the amount of meat we need for everyone in the US and the amount of meat, per acre, produced on polyculture farms. The USDA and FDA collect and distribute vast amounts of data on the productivity of US farms, but I couldn’t find anything on the productivity of pasture-based, diversified farms. So I set out to collect the data myself.

I first reached out to the farm where I currently get my meat: North Mountain Pastures (NMP), a polyculture farm in Pennsylvania. My family has been part of their Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program for several years now. Every month, we get a box of meat with a variety of cuts from a variety of animals. The farm is run by Brooks and Anna Miller, who graciously contributed to this project.

Brooks and Anna put together this table of their farm’s output in 2013, which includes all of the animals they raised and the edible pounds of meat typically provided by each animal. The total weight they compute is consistent with a rough estimate based on the amount of meat supplied through their CSA. Brooks and Anna also calculated the acreage of their farm and the land required to produce some additional grains they feed their chickens and pigs. Dividing the total number of pounds (49,855) by the total acreage used (114), gives an annual output of 437.33 pounds of meat per acre.

The other key piece of data is the amount of meat required for the entire US. The USDA recommends that typical adults get about 6 oz of protein each day, which is 0.375 pounds (see MyPlate for more info). For this analysis, let’s assume that all of the protein comes from meat. Throughout a whole year, we would need to produce 42 billion pounds of meat to feed all 308 million Americans their recommended 6 oz. of meat every day. Americans actually consume about 52 billion pounds of meat each year (Earth Policy Institute).

Assuming the productivity of North Mountain Pastures farm, we would need just under 100 million acres of land to produce 42 billion pounds of meat each year and 119 million acres to match current demand for meat.

Those are such big numbers that it’s hard to interpret them without some context. So, let’s compare them to the amount of land we currently use for grazing. According to the USDA (as cited by the EPA), the US devoted about 600 million acres to animal grazing in 2007.

That means we could produce enough meat for the entire US population by converting 16% of our current grazing land to polyculture farming. We would need to convert 20% to match current meat demand.

That doesn’t seem like a lot of land at all. In fact, it seems like diversified farms could actually reduce the amount of land we devote to meat production without reducing the amount of meat people eat. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that meat is totally sustainable. There are other environmental impacts we should consider, such as water usage and carbon emission. From the perspective of land use though, diversified, pasture-based farms can provide more than enough meat without requiring any additional land.

If people choose to get less of their protein from meat, it would further lessen the land burden of raising animals. For example, North Mountain Pastures also produces eggs, which we did not include in their meat production numbers. Fish, nuts, seeds, and legumes are also high in protein and can serve as alternatives to meat. However, if sustainability is the goal, we would need to consider the relative environmental impact and scalability of obtaining these other foods to that of meat raised on polyculture farms.

Another benefit of diversified, pasture-based farming is that it hasn’t yet been fully optimized. Farmers and scientists around the world are working on advances that can boost efficiency and lessen the environmental impact of raising animals for food. At North Mountain Pastures, they are working with grain farmers who use no-till agriculture and other ecofriendly methods, exploring ways of reducing off-site feed, and adding an orchard. In a much broader effort, the Savory Institute is devoted to restoring badly managed grazing land and promoting ecologically-sound land management. If we actually wanted to convert current grazing land to polyculture farms, the Savory Institute’s research could help bring the productivity of marginal land closer to a farm like North Mountain Pastures. Additional improvements, as well as more widespread adoption, are also likely to lower the cost of producing meat in this way, a savings that can be passed on to the consumer. Currently, members of the NMP CSA pay about $8 per pound for their meat.

One other potential barrier to producing all our meat on polyculture farms is that we would have to change the way we eat meat. North Mountain Pastures raised 7 different animal species with a wide range in the number of animals of each species. For example, they raised only 12 cows and 10 goats but 240 turkeys and 5200 chickens. To take advantage of a diversified farm requires that we diversify both the types of animals and the cuts of meat we that we regularly eat.

For this analysis, I’ve assumed that any diversified farm could be as productive as North Mountain Pastures. Without any additional data, it’s hard to know if this assumption is reasonable. I will say that I didn’t know how productive NMP would be when I approached them about this project, although that doesn’t necessarily mean that their productivity is typical. And productivity can vary a lot depending on the location of the farm. That’s why I would like to expand upon this study to include as many polyculture farms as I can find. That way, I can better quantify the productivity and scalability of polyculture farms, assess additional environmental concerns, and help develop a pathway to a food system that produces meat without destroying the environment or abusing animals.

It’s a lofty goal and one that I can’t achieve on my own. If you, or someone you know, has data on the productivity of a polyculture farm, please consider sharing it with me. Together, we can turn the polyculture project into a polyculture solution.

Note: This material was originally presented at the 2014 Ancestral Health Symposium. I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this terrific event and for all of the interest and feedback I received from my fellow attendees.

John Durant: Zoos and the importance of natural habitats.

Most of the time, a talk about zoos is going to focus either on the plight of captive animals or how we human animals are trapped in societal zoos. Either way, they are generally pretty depressing. But John Durant is not most people; he's a self-proclaimed modern caveman and a somewhat reluctant champion of the caveman lifestyle, despite his appearance on The Colbert Report.

John's talk at the Ancestral Health Symposium began with the history of zoos and with the story of Jumbo, one of the most famous circus elephants ever. And yes, this part was a bit depressing. The first zoos treated animals like statues, separating them into stark, cement cages and removing them completely from the natural world. The animals did not thrive. Zoos became more sophisticated over time, but the priorities of the zoo designers were off. Habitats incorporated more elements of nature, but they were designed to be visually appealing to people rather than animals. As John put it, the purpose of zoos has changed from status symbols to entertainment to education to, finally, conservation. We have now learned that the key to keeping zoo animals healthy is to replicate as much of their natural environment as possible. The present state of zoos and attitudes toward zoo design follow this paradigm. For example, the depth of water features in penguin habitats are now determined based on the diving behavior of penguins observed in the wild. Studies of wild animals also inform the diets of animals in captivity.

It seems obvious, doesn't it? Any given species, from lions to turtles, evolved in a specific region under specific conditions. Each species found its own way to adapt to its environment and create a niche that would allow it to survive. Hence, animals have the best chance to live and reproduce in those natural environments to which they adapted throughout time. Even human animals.

We, too, perform best under the conditions to which our bodies and minds adapted over the whole of human history. To be clear, John is not advocating that we all go back to living in caves. There are quite a number of novel aspects of our habitat that are positive (flush toilets and antibiotics are two that come to mind). Rather, the idea is the same as with zoos – to the extent possible, replicate your natural environment to enable yourself to reach your full potential. John elaborated on this idea in our interview. Even in a modern world, we can get back in touch with our past by taking walks, eating a prehistoric diet, and sleeping in a dark quiet place, undisturbed by modern “advances” such as alarm clocks, nightlights, honking horns, or that red indicator light on the fire alarm. Visiting zoos, John pointed out, is a great way for us to reconnect with animals and nature in a way that is reminiscent of our paleolithic past. When it comes to exercise, be outside whenever possible. Preferably barefoot.

Barefoot? Yes, John is a big supporter of the barefoot and minimalist shoe movement. In fact, at the interview, he was wearing what looked like a flat piece of wood with a rope cord woven through it, wrapping around his toe and ankle. My flip flops would look like orthopedic support shoes next to these things. As John explained, our feet are designed for walking and running. Up until the very recent invention of shoes, our feet got us everywhere we needed to go, without arch support or motion control or custom orthotics. Our feet are incredibly sophisticated and instantly responsive. They are already the best running shoes we could ever have.

I think what makes people like John Durant is that he is genuine and humble. He lives like a caveman because it makes him healthy and happy, not so he can be famous or rich or sell you something. John practices what he preaches, and I think he's a lot more interested in living than preaching. Despite having been interviewed by Stephen Colbert, John actually seemed nervous to speak with me and worried about how he would do in the interview. John, if you are reading this, it was a pleasure.

But what does all this teach me about ethical eating? When I started this journey, I was most focused on the corn industry, especially the ways in which it contributes to environmental damage and the link between cheap corn feed and the development of confined animal feeding operations. CAFOs do a great deal of environmental damage in their own right. Plus, the animal waste has proven harmful to people in neighboring communities. And, for me, the absolutely appalling conditions these animals have to endure make any food produced in this way totally unpalatable.

As I have learned more about the important links between health and ancestral diets – both for humans and animals – our system looks more and more broken. Grain subsidies (corn, wheat, and soy) make novel, refined foods the cheapest and most abundant calories on the market. Combined with refined sugars, these foods appear to the be basis for Western diseases like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer, Alzheimer's, and many autoimmune disorders. We are sick, and the animals we eat are sick.

I consider an ethical food system to be one that provides healthy food over many generations. To achieve this, we must reject diets based on refined grains, added sugars, and meat from unhealthy animals. One of the things I learned from John is that both animals and humans achieve healthfulness in the same way - by embracing our nature. We depend on animals as a food source; for us to be healthy, we need to keep them healthy too.

Below, you can watch John's interview and follow along with his slides. Eventually, the slides will be embedded, and I'll provide an updated link.

"Wild animals, zoos, and you: The influence of habitat on health" by John Durant

Wild Animals, Zoos, and You: The Influence of Habitat on Health (John Durant)

You can also listen to John's answers to my questions in this video (which may also be updated soon):

John Durant Interview at #AHS11 from Ancestry on Vimeo.