Don't Fear Your Food: Agriculture and the Environment

I spent weeks trying to figure out a way to write this blog that will satisfy both me and my readers.  I want very much to thoroughly address every single aspect of agriculture's interaction with the environment.  However, I have discovered that to do so would be a huge job.  I also think that I would bore my readers by talking about minute details they may or may not fully understand.  So, I have decided that with this topic, and perhaps with others, I will speak in broad terms and talk about the motives behind actions, rather than talking about details.  I will, however, provide some links to further reading, should my readers want to know more about the topic.

A while ago, I watched a documentary called "Cowspiracy".  I had an inkling that this documentary would threaten the agriculture industry in some way, so I was wary about watching it.  However, I know that if I hide from the concerns that non-farmers have about agriculture, I will never be able to address those concerns.  I will not be an ostrich, hiding my head in the sand, so I watched the documentary.  There were several concerns brought up by the producer, but the over-arching issue that drove the film project was the impact of animal agriculture on the environment.  I can't respond to everything that was brought up unless I write a very thick book on the subject, but I would like to talk a bit about agriculture's impact on the environment.

There is no doubt that agriculture is deeply linked to the environment.  Every production activity performed by a farmer impacts the surrounding environment in some way, whether we are putting something into the environment, taking something out, or modifying the landscape for some project.  This is true for both crop production and animal agriculture.

Farmers' interactions with the environment are largely driven by economic benefit.  When farmers take care of the land that they farm, it is because they recognize that taking care of the land now will lead to increased or sustained economic benefits in the future.  When farmers don't take care of their land properly, it is because they cannot see the future benefits that will arise from the costs incurred today.  Allow me to illustrate this with two different (very simplified) scenarios.

Scenario 1: Crop Farming
In crop farming, soil health is a major factor in crop yield, and crop yield has a direct link to profits for the farmer.  A farmer who wants to take care of his soil in order to sustain a high crop yield in the future (or to increase crop yields) might test his soil, put nitrogen and other fertilizers into the soil to replace what the crop took out, chop the straw and leave it on the field as organic matter, use reduced tillage techniques, and use other practices to sustain or improve soil health.  Another farmer may look at his options and decide that a soil test is too expensive or takes too long to do properly.  He may decide that fertilizer is too expensive, or that he wants to bale his straw to sell as bedding.  The new equipment required for reduce tillage seeding may also seem like too much of an expense.  All of these expenses might become barriers to the farmer, so he will look like the one who cares less about the environment, even though both farmers were equally driven by economic benefits and costs.

Scenario 2: Cattle Ranching
In cattle ranching, access to good drinking water is key.  Studies are finding that cleaner drinking water causes increased gains in cattle and keeps them healthier.  A farmer who wants to take extra good care of his cows might fence off access to streams, lakes, and other water sources, and have the water pumped into tanks from which the cows can drink.  The water is clean because the cows aren't getting into their drinking water.  The riparian areas around the water sources get an added benefit, too, though.  The trees, shrubs, and other plants grow back along the banks of the streams (or lakes, etc.), which take pollutants out of the water, making it cleaner.  I could go on about the benefits of restoring riparian areas, but I'll just direct you to the "Further Reading" section.  A different farmer might look at the costs and time associated with fencing off potentially large areas, installing new watering systems, and (in some cases) training the cows to use the new watering system, and decide that the small gains aren't worth it right now.  As a result, the riparian area will continue to be knocked down by the cattle, the banks will erode into the stream, causing it to be shallower, and the cattle will be drinking dirtier water.

In each of these scenarios, each farmer is motivated by financial cost or gain, not necessarily by the need to care for the environment.  Don't get me wrong; most farmers do care about the environment and enjoy spending time in nature (for example, I just saw a fisher in the bush when I was hauling bales this morning - it was SO cool!!).  However, farms are businesses - big businesses with tiny margins.  Farmers have to make decisions based on economics.  Fortunately, when we look towards the future to see what can be gained from decisions and practices that benefit the environment, we can usually see that those decisions and practices also benefit our bank accounts.  Yes, there are things that the farming community needs to work on in terms of how we care for the environment.  However, we need non-farmers to give us the chance to figure out how we can benefit both the individual farm and the environment.  Without our bank accounts, we farmers can't do anything to benefit the environment, because we wouldn't have our farms.  Please keep that in mind when you have questions about how agriculture impacts the environment.  No one has all of the answers, but we are working on finding the best way to produce different types of food on different types of land in ways that benefit both the food industry and the environment.

For Further Reading
Cattle Producer's Guide to Managing Riparian Zones
The Effect of Clean Drinking Water on Cattle
General Soil Health and Soil Testing Information
Video on the Economic Benefits of Soil Health
A Picture of What Happens When Farmers Don't Care for the Environment

Don't Fear Your Food: Decoding the Marketing Hype in the Grocery Store

The more I scroll through social media, listen to the radio, walk through the grocery store, and generally interact with the world and the people in it, the more I hear and see some key words and phrases.  Over time, I have discovered that consumers assume that certain phrases have meanings, but those assumed meanings are not accurate, and marketers take full advantage of the average consumer's lack of expertise.  To help you understand the marketing labels that are floating around, I've decided to write a brief guide to common marketing terms and what they really mean.  Since this is a brief guide, I will not have time to go into great detail.  If you have further questions about a certain term, please let me know in the comments section and I'll do my best to answer your questions.  I also hope to give a few of these terms their own blog post in the future.

Organic - This is the one label you can trust if you know what it means.  Anything that is labeled "organic" must comply with the Canadian Organic Standards.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I'm really not sure what most consumers think organic means.  It seems as though many people don't know what it means at all, but they assume it is a good thing.  Others seem to think that it means the food is raised exactly as it would have been a few hundred years ago.  
• What does it actually mean?
• Organic food is raised in accordance with the Canadian Organic Standards.  These standards differ depending on the type of food being raised (vegetables vs. grains vs. livestock, for example), but they generally limit the types of inputs that may be used in raising the food.  You can check out the standards online to find out exactly how the organic food you buy has been raised.

Natural - Consumers love this word.  I hate it.  It's incredibly ambiguous and not regulated.

• What do consumers think this means?
• Again, I'm not totally sure, but I think consumers generally assume that "natural" means that the food is raised as if it was just growing in the wild.
• What does it actually mean?
• This is why I hate this term.  "Natural" means absolutely nothing.  It could mean that your cows were raised with other cows, thus fulfilling their natural social inclinations, even if those cows are crammed into dirty, over-crowded pens and fed very unnatural diets.  This is just an example, but can you understand how "natural" just doesn't describe anything accurately?

Grass Fed - Again, this term is not federally regulated.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I think consumers think this means the animal ate grass for every meal of it's life.  Others understand that it might mean that the animal ate a diet of grass for some amount of time while it was alive.  They also generally assume that animals fed grass are healthier and give better meat than those that are fed grain.
• What does it actually mean?
• Think about it for a moment: grass fed beef (or lamb, bison, whatever you're eating) is beef that has been fed grass.  Since this term is not regulated on labeling, all we can safely assume is that the animal was fed grass at least once.  Many consumers seem to have caught on to this, which brings us to the next term.

Grass Finished - This term is not federally regulated, but it is more specific than the previous one.

• What do consumers think this means?
• Some consumers don't understand that grass-finished and grass-fed are not the same thing.  Others understand that this should be a guarantee that the animal was "finished" on a grass diet.  ("Finished" means that the animal reached it's slaughter, or finished, weight).
• What does it actually mean?
• In theory, this should mean that the animal was on a grass diet while it was being finished.  Many producers using this label use it to mean that the animal was fed a grass diet throughout its life.  In theory, someone could call an animal grass finished just by feeding it a last meal of grass, but I don't think that actually happens.  I would like to also note that grass finished or grass fed animals are not necessarily healthier than grain finished animals and the meat is not necessarily better either.

GMO and non-GMO - Genetically modified organisms and labeling related to them are federally regulated.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I wish I knew what consumers think GMO food is.  From what I can gather, consumers seem to think that GMO food is created in a sketchy underground laboratory by mad scientists who work for companies owned by evil greedy corporations.  These GMO foods are then sold to stupid, backwoods farmers who naively obey whatever the corporation tells them to do.  Consumers know that GMO foods are incredibly unhealthy and cause all kinds of health problems.
• What does it actually mean?
• I will eventually devote a blog post to this, but briefly, genetically modified organisms are organisms (plants or animals - only GMO plants are currently grown and sold as food) that have been genetically modified to achieve certain characteristics that could be achieved by genetic selection (breeding) perhaps a few hundred years from now.  If they are sold as food in Canada, they are safe and have undergone rigorous testing to prove it.

Hormone/Steroid-Free - All food has hormones in it.  Labels should read, "Raised without added hormones," but some marketers get lazy and just say "Hormone free."  Unless the meat is raised under organic certification, this term is not federally regulated.

• What do consumers think this means?
• Consumers do seem to understand that conventionally raised animals are injected with hormones.  They don't seem to understand what type of hormones these are.  They also assume that the hormones appear in the meat in dangerous levels, causing their food to be unhealthy.
• What does it actually mean?
• Let me first say that steroids are hormones.  Any company that advertises food as hormone and steroid free is just cheating and trying to make themselves look doubly trustworthy.  Now that I've got that out of the way, I'll tell you what it means for meat to be raised without added hormones (I will devote a separate blog post to this later).  Conventionally raised animals have certain hormones injected into them, usually in the ear.  The hormones are released into the animal's bloodstream over time,  helping them to process their food in a more efficient manner (we call it being feed efficient), which makes them grow a bit faster and has a side benefit of causing them to release fewer harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  The hormones do not appear in the meat in harmful levels.

Antibiotic-Free - Again, the labels should read, "Raised without the use of antibiotics."  Also, just like with "hormone-free" meat, this term is not federally regulated unless the meat is raised under organic certification.  This topic will also get its own blog post in the future.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I think consumers fear that their food could be full of antibiotics.  They think if an animal is treated with antibiotics or fed antibiotics, the meat and milk is tainted.  The average consumer doesn't understand the complexities of antibiotic use in agriculture, so they assume that "antibiotic-free" food is just safer.
• What does it actually mean?
• There are never antibiotics in meat, milk, or other food products in Canada.  If you are eating it, there are not antibiotics in it.  However, antibiotics may be used to prevent or treat disease in living animals, and certain types are fed to animals to make them more feed efficient.  All antibiotics have a withdrawal period, so an animal cannot be slaughtered or milked until the antibiotic is out of its system.  Animals raised without the use of antibiotics are raised without being fed or treated with any antibiotics.  There are no antibiotics in their feed, and no antibiotics are given to them to prevent or treat disease.  I would like to point out that there are a few circumstances in which antibiotics may be used in organic programs.

Free Run - This term generally applies to poultry.  It is not federally regulated.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I haven't run into consumers talking about this term very much, so I'm not sure what consumers think it means.  I think they generally realise that it means that the birds are not kept in cages.  The may think it means the birds are running free around the farmyard, with no fences or restraints, happily scratching in the garden and pecking at stray insects.
• What does it actually mean?
• Free run birds are raised in an environment without cages.  They are not outside.  They live in a barn with perches and nesting areas.

Free Range - This term also applies to poultry.  It is not federally regulated, but has a specific definition.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I think consumers are generally unfamiliar with the difference between free run and free range birds.  They use the terms interchangeably and imagine free range birds to be running around outside without restraint, as they were in the free run imaginings.
• What does it actually mean?
• Free range birds are raised in barns similar to free run barns, but they are also allowed to "range" outside, likely (but not necessarily) in an enclosed area.

Sustainable - This term is not federally regulated and is incredibly ambiguous.  There are currently programs in place to put a definition on this term.

• What do consumers think this means?
• Consumers don't seem to know exactly what this term means, since it is a very ambiguous term, even in general use.  However, the general idea seems to be that sustainable agricultural practices are those that ensure that food can continue to be produced for centuries to come, usually in an environmental sense.
• What does it actually mean?
• At the moment, sustainable doesn't mean a whole lot.  There are programs in the works to find a definition for sustainable agricultural practices.  When farmers talk about sustainability, we want to know if the practice is environmentally and economically sustainable.  Marketers push the environmental aspect, but those companies supporting the programs to define sustainability also support the economics side.

Humanely Raised - This term is not federally regulated, and raising livestock is incredibly complex, so it can be difficult to pin down if certain practices are more humane than others.

• What do consumers think this means?
• I'm not sure, but I think that consumers generally just want to know that the livestock producing their food are getting sufficient food, water, and shelter, and are not being cruelly beaten by irresponsible farm workers.
• What does it actually mean?
• Livestock that are humanely raised should go through programs on farms, in feedlots, and through slaughter in which they are handled using low-stress handling techniques, and in which they have their basic needs met.

Note: I have stated that certain terms are not federally regulated.  They may be regulated by independent programs, but these programs may or may not be enforced.  Federal regulations are strictly enforced.

More Helpful Resources:

• Free Run vs. Free Range
• Egg Labels and What They Mean for Chicken Health
• Canadian Organic Standard and Regulations 
• Information about Hormone Use in Beef
• Information about Antibiotic Use in Beef Cattle
• Accepted Animal Welfare Standards in Alberta (Alberta Farm Animal Care)
• Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
• Verified Sustainable Beef Pilot Project