Big beef seems to be paying more attention to grass.

“Pasture-finished beef cattle are usually marketed between 16 and 24 months of age. Select animals that have mature weights under 1,100 lbs., as these will most likely finish at the proper time,” he says in “Cattle Production: Considerations for Pasture-Based Beef and Dairy Producers” (http://attra-ncat.org/attra-pub/pdf/cattleprod.pdf). That means an early-maturing animal that can put on external fat and marble quickly and easily. . .

For this reason, he says the moderate body-type English breeds usually fit best with grass operations.

“However, it is important to remember that there is wide variability in the expression of the traits important for pasture-based systems, even within breeds. . .

The Arkansas research, a nine-year study conducted during the 1990s, found small-framed, early-maturing and intermediate-framed, early-maturing cattle finished on pasture had carcasses with higher marbling and quality grade scores than larger-framed, later-maturing cattle. Steers in the intermediate-framed category were current pedigree Angus, and the small-frame steers were represented by Angus cattle similar to those popular in the 1950s.

The article goes on, repeating some of the facts from a grazing 101 course. The notable thing isn't what the article says so much as that it is printed in Beef magazine.

It's interesting to study the history of the industry since the 1950s. Producers chased the market trying to get better pay for their yearly crop of calves, seeking a premium price per pound for fashionable calves, or more pounds for standard calves, but not paying as much attention to finishing characteristics since they were all sold to feedlots.

Now there's increasing attention to "grazing genetics", meaning animals that thrive on forage rather than grain, and that have body types that are better suited for this purpose. Some other characteristics not mentioned above are long spines, short legs, big guts and mouths, and a calm demeanor. "Not much air under them".

Contrast the measured tone of the Beef article with this one from Mother Earth News.

I have been fascinated by the permanence and healing power of grassland for 15 years now. If we respect the great original wisdom of the prairies, I’m convinced we can heal the wounds inflicted on the American landscape by industrial agriculture. . .

Now there is big news on this front. A diverse collection of pioneers across the nation is raising not bison, but mostly grass-fed beef and dairy — an enterprise that can scale up quickly. They have a working model. It is not unrealistic to expect that we as a nation could convert millions of acres of ravaged industrial grain fields (plus millions of acres of land in federal conservation programs that cannot currently be used for grazing) to permanent pastures and see no decline in beef and dairy production in the bargain.

The best evidence of this potential meat production revolution is a label that began showing up on packages of grass-fed beef across the nation early in 2009. The American Grassfed Association, a network of almost 400 graziers, is behind this effort. The label certifies the beef came from cattle that ate only grass from pastures, not feedlots; received no hormones or antibiotics in their feed; and were humanely raised and handled. It signals the emergence of a marketing network that already has placed grass-fed products in virtually every region of the nation in co-ops, health food stores and, in the case of the Southeast, in Publix Super Markets, a chain of more than 900 stores. The grass-fed label is evidence that the idea has reached critical mass. It’s been a long time coming, but what is driving it is profit, plain and simple.

As usual with dark siders it's over the top hype. I think that the Beef magazine take is more realistic since they truly are driven by profit plain and simple and don't think that this is a novel idea. A great number of the people in that mainstream business grew up in that culture, know full well how things were done in the day, and know how to do it again if that becomes profitable. The key issue is the cost of grain and stored forage, and that is a function of subsidies and regulations. Our government created the current situation and it would not continue on a level playing field.

Our current system is "corporatist". That doesn't have anything to do with legal corporations, it's a form of collectivism in which the participants in an interest group - corporations, proprietorships, bureaucracies and all of the "stakeholders": management and labor - collude with legislatures to control the segment in ways that benefit the participants. . . usually to the detriment of society as a whole, and in this case causing harm to the environment as well. Most of the governments on the planet are corporatist. Some describe it as a middle way between capitalism and socialism, and there's some truth in that, but it includes the worst features of both rather than the best.

To improve our food system and improve the environment this is the main problem. The breathless hype of Mother Earth News - pinning its hopes on a cartel of grass fed producers - is pure corporatism. It makes sense in a corporatist country, but it won't do society or the environment any good. The industry segment is already riven with conflict as the idea of standards, labels, certification and favoritism loom. The current crippling muddle of organic agriculture is the feared result. If all you and your cartel seek is a few bucks for a few well positioned players then this is OK, but if you have loftier ambitions than a single digit market share then hold the certifications and shoot the regulators on sight.

Brands are a better solution. You probably pay more attention to the brand of arse wipe you use than you do to the beef you eat. If you like the things that I say about how I raise my beef, how I care for the land, my business plan and market position, then talk to me. We can deal. If you want a less involved buying experience that is more automatic then you can find Harris Ranch, Omaha, Slater and other brands in stores or by mail order fresh packs. It's no more difficult than having diet food delivered, or buying gadgets and books from Amazon.

It's not a moral issue. It's OK if you just don't much care about such things and would rather focus on the fine points of your software tools than the food you consume, but if you do care then think about the future of food if we continue down the corporatist path. We are where we are now because of it, and in future we will slap our foreheads and lament that we did it again. It's self punking.