Organic Consumers Really Ought to Keep Reading Those Labels!

***What's interesting here is that the 'booted' USDA organic ingredients. . . are not organic.

What's really incomprehensible is the concluding statement below that the ". . . USDA is revising its National List to include the 38 (nonorganic!) ingredients. If all goes as planned, processors would be able to use them when an organic counterpart wasn't available commercially."

Legal/Regulatory News
USDA gives the boot to certain organic ingredients

By John Gregerson on 6/18/2007 for Meatingplace.com


As a result of a new USDA rule, organic products containing certain non-organic minor ingredients are in non-compliance with organic certification — at least for now.

The National Organic Program regulation clarifies that only ingredients appearing in the USDA's National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances are suitable for organic product — bad news for 38 non-organic ingredients, including colors, starches and oils, routinely used in organic foods as a result of misinterpretation of National List regulations.

The ban may be temporary. USDA is revising its National List to include the 38 ingredients. If all goes as planned, processors would be able to use them when an organic counterpart wasn't available commercially.

Ethanol Refineries - Fair or Foul?

by Jimmie L. West

The Environmental Protection Agency, just a few short weeks ago, revised downward the pollution control standards for ethanol producing plants. It wasn't exactly major news for the networks -- but it should have been. This action by the EPA no doubt is a result of strong lobbying efforts from major corn and ethanol producers. Prior to this revision, the threshold of toxic emissions allowed before an ethanol producing site must install the latest pollution controls was 100 tons annually; the EPA's April revision more than doubles that threshold to 250 annual tons of toxic emissions. In addition, the EPA agreed to allow so-called 'fugitive' emissions from small vents or pipes to be excluded from computation in reaching the new 250 ton pollution emission threshold for ethanol plants.

While many U.S. farmers and rural communities are eagerly on board for raising more corn and building ethanol plants in their communities -- many are not. The concerns abound regarding the permanent loss of quality of air and life and many are fighting to stop the building of ethanol plants in their rural communities. The EPA's willingness to relax pollution control standards for ethanol production facilities certainly strengthens the argument and position of those farming communities fighting to keep the fumes of ethanol production out of their air space.

One of the primary arguments for the use of ethanol, or ethanol mixed with gasoline, is that it reduces carbon monoxide emissions, which sounds just grand on the surface. However, what is largely absent from all ethanol rhetoric is that ethanol emissions contain "nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl nitrate". (Patzek, 2004) And that's just to name a few of the toxic by-products of cooling off the earth by pumping some ethanol into your tank.

What a joke. And the jokes on us. Do you really want to be an Ethanol Patriot and pump bio-fuel into your car? You see, ethanol is pretty volatile, it will break down while you are pumping it into your car. Take a deep breath, pull those carcinogens into your lungs - could that be the new American way to save the earth?

The State of Minnesota has embraced on a fairly large scale the construction and operation of ethanol plants, having some 16 ethanol plants in operation, and several more are under construction today. The following is an excerpt from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) web site -- and it surely must be scary for a state or region to feel like a virtual guinea pig or lab rat as the emissions from ethanol plants are studied after the fact to determine just what is coming out of an ethanol smoke stack.

"Consent decrees negotiated with the plant owners revealed underreported emissions and required pollution control equipment to be installed in an effort to accurately quantify and reduce air emissions. Most facilities consistently reported similar constituents including detectable levels of acetaldehyde, acetic acid, formaldehyde, ethanol and methanol, although there was considerable variation in quantities of analytes among facilities and among different processes at a facility. Although the data set is small, it is the most extensive available. Further systematic testing is necessary to thoroughly characterize the complex gas stream from various stages of the ethanol production process. Until additional data are obtained and analyzed, we cannot say with complete certainty whether data gaps have implications for risk analysis." Any state, any community, considering building a 'biorefinery' to produce ethanol should visit the MPCA web site -- it is pretty darn scary, and it looks like it's a money pit from an administrative and regulatory viewpoint as well.

The more than 200 U.S. ethanol plants in operation or under construction emit thousands of tons of pollutants a year, including nitrogen oxides, a key element of smog and damage to the ozone layer. As the EPA has apparently little concern for the air pollution of rural areas from ethanol production, other States are hopefully investigating ethanol plant emissions and implementing their own regulatory standards to ensure the cleanest air possible for those who must now live with an industrial smoke stack next door.

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), which bills itself as the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, has a very lame response on their web site to the results of a very recent Stanford University study that concluded there were risks from ethanol emissions. Per the RFA, "this study by Professor Jacobson does show that most of the air quality “problems” he identified stem from acetaldehyde that is either emitted directly or results from excessive ethanol emissions. If these problems were found to be serious enough, then regulations could quickly be put into place that would require vehicles . . . meet more stringent ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions standards before they could be certified for sale." Excuse me? Why are we subsidizing the creation of a bio-fuel before we've even fully explored it's new and singular impact on the air we breath? How does this fella know we can find a way to lessen acetaldehyde emissions? He doesn't; he just has to be hopeful and positive, that's his job. By the way, acetaldehyde is a known carcinogen.

Within the EPA's April decision to relax the pollution standards for ethanol refineries, there is an exception made that both undermines the basis for relaxing the standards and clearly shows a lack of concern for the clean air in rural communities: The newly revised EPA standards do not apply to ethanol plants in urban areas where air pollution is already a problem. So, just what does that tell you? Tells me there is known 'bad stuff' coming out of those smoke stacks, and allowing 250 tons to be emitted into good clean country air is a cop out on the part of the EPA.

U.S. ethanol production has jumped more than 300% since the year 2000. Per the RFA in early April, there are currently 114 ethanol biorefineries (RFA's earth friendly term for their ethanol plants) nationwide with the capacity to produce more than 5.6 billion gallons annually. There are 80 ethanol refineries and 7 expansions under construction with a combined annual capacity of more than 6 billion gallons.

The National Corn Growers Association says U.S. corn growers hold the potential to produce 15 billion bushels by 2015 - a third of which could be used to produce some 15 billion gallons of ethanol. But, corn based ethanol producers and farmers don't have a corner on the ethanol market. What happens when the subsidies and tax incentives dry up? or when there is a major long term drought? The Global Warming fanatics might be right. Where does that leave corn based ethanol? Nowhere really. Can that new corn based ethanol plant in Littletown, Kansas be converted to the latest and greatest? If so, at what cost? Or will it eventually become nothing more than a massive incinerator for the worst industrial waste money can produce in the world? I'll leave that possibility for another day -- but it is quite real.

How is it that we as a country have gotten in such a rush to subsidize ethanol production when we have not fully explored all the alternative sources and arrived at the most economic and healthy approach to producing ethanol in the USA? If this were a drug, it would still be under testing.

There are many alternatives to creating ethanol other than from corn that are being explored globally. The one I find most intriguing was recently announced by LanzaTech, a New Zealand based company. They are using bacterial fermentation to convert carbon monoxide into ethanol. Per LanzaTech, this technology could produce 50 billion gallons of ethanol from the world's steel mills alone, turning the liability of carbon emissions into valuable fuels worth over $50 billion per year at very low costs and adding substantial value to the steel industry. There would be some poetic beauty to that alternative, and one that would economically and environmentally have a positive impact on industrialized areas in the USA and around the world -- including Southeast Texas.

Research is underway as well to produce ethanol from other plants, including wheat, oats and barley. Sugar cane is already a viable source of ethanol -- while it is a water needy crop, it can withstand a wide range of drought and freeze conditions, and it's a perennial crop. Others are looking at genetically engineering microbes to produce enzymes that will convert cellulose in crop waste, wood chips and other plants into ethanol. The Energy Department is investing $385 million in six new cellulosic ethanol plants around the country. More than half the ethanol made in Kansas already comes from sorghum, which requires less water than corn.

And speaking of water, do you really find much coming out of Citizen Green's mouth about the massive amount of water required to produce ethanol from corn? How about the enormous fertilize, herbicide, and pesticide requirements for those annual crops of corn, and the post-production waste water the ethanol plant has to find a home for? How will all of this impact the biology of our water, our oceans? Do you know? I didn't think so. Have a chat with a long time resident of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and see what they have to say about chemical run off from the cotton, grain, and corn fields that makes it's way to the Laguna Madre and impacts the ecosystem of that once pristine bay. Ask them if they willingly drink water out of the tap. Then magnify their response by multiples of......oh, say 100, let's think big, let's think long term ethanol production, long-term blinders. Ouch, it's just too scary. It needs to be curtailed now.

I think most of us would go back to riding a bicycle before we'd knowingly create a national dependency and drain on our water resources just to have ethanol to buzz over to Cousin Joe's for a beer, or Aunt Bet's for bowl of gumbo. We can strap a bottle of water to that bike and life goes on. Suddenly car-pooling wouldn't seem such an irritating idea, after all, we can't live without good clean water -- or air, or for that matter good old Southern cornbread. If this corn ethanol takes off, just how costly will a pound of corn meal be?

If we're going to create a whole new dynamic in America's food supply in order to mitigate our dependence on oil, let's pick something that would have a healthy impact on the American diet. After all, we are the most obese country in the world -- let's fix that problem and at the same time create an alternative bio-fuel. With those joint goals, sugar cane becomes the ultimate ethanol crop with enormous positive consequences for the health of America. No doubt with less sugar in our diet we could breathe a whole lot more of that fouled country air -- our immune systems would be much stronger without all that sugar, and we'd be a lot thinner and could more easily fit in little bitty cars that run on bio-fuel.


Copyright, May 7, 2007, Jimmie Lynn West

Links:

EnergyJustice.net - Ethanol Fact Sheet

Ethanol BioRefinery Locations in the USA

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Ethanol in Minnesota

Massive Water Requirements of Ethanol - Let the Ethanol Producers Tell You Themselves How Much They Need

States, EPA Raise Water Quality Concerns Over New Ethanol Incentives, April 2007

Thermo-Dynamics of the Corn-Ethanol BioFuel Cycle, Tad Patzek, UC Berkely, 2004

The United States of America Meets the Planet Earth, Patzek, 2005

Carbon Monoxide - Future Source of Ethanol?

If the new technology discussed below proves to be a viable approach to Ethanol production one day, it will surely improve the air quality of the USA due to captured and utilized carbon monoxide emissions, and perhaps take some pressure off the demand and thus price of corn. A continued increase in the price of corn effects not only the cost of gains in a feedlot and on the family farm, but also is having 'trickle down' ramifications throughout our economy that will become increasingly apparent to the American consumer.
An alternative for the family farm is to raise their cattle on grass and legumes, rather than depend on corn and it's byproducts, and that requires moderate-framed easy-fattening grass genetics.
Pictured here is a British White grassfed yearling bull, grassfed from conception onwards.


New Zealand company converts carbon monoxide to ethanol

AUCKLAND, New Zealand, April 24 /PRNewswire/ ‒LanzaTech, the leader in technology using bacterial fermentation to convert carbon monoxide into ethanol, officially announced April 24 that it has secured US$3.5M in Series A funding, led by Khosla Ventures and supported by two existing New Zealand based investors.

This funding will support further technology development, establishing a pilot plant, engineering work to prepare for commercial-scale ethanol production and positions the company to raise significant capital in the near future. This technology could produce 50 billion gallons of ethanol from the world's steel mills alone, turning the liability of carbon emissions into valuable fuels worth over $50 billion per year at very low costs and adding substantial value to the steel industry.

The technology will also be a key contributor to the cellulosic biofuels business as it can convert syngas produced through gasification into ethanol.

"We have proven in our laboratories that the carbon monoxide in industrial waste gases such as those generated during steel manufacture can be processed by bacterial fermentation to produce ethanol. Garnering the financial and strategic support of Khosla Ventures is a significant validation of our approach, and we welcome Khosla Ventures Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Doug Cameron, to our Board of Directors," said Dr. Sean Simpson, Chief Scientist and Founder of LanzaTech.

Vinod Khosla commented, "Technology to produce fuel ethanol from waste material, such as the carbon monoxide produced in steel manufacture and other industries, makes use of a low cost and plentiful point source carbon feedstock. The opportunity is a large one as carbon monoxide is a significant byproduct of steel manufacture. LanzaTech has developed technology and a process to cost-effectively convert carbon monoxide into ethanol -- this ground breaking technology provides the tools to address the challenge of reducing emissions and turns waste into a valuable product, while developing new businesses based on innovative science."

LanzaTech was co-founded in 2005 by Dr. Richard Forster and Dr. Sean Simpson, who both have many years of experience in biotechnology and biofuels. The company is aggressively pursuing the development of advanced gas to ethanol technologies based on work developed in its laboratories in Auckland, New Zealand. As part of its two-pronged strategy of technology development and deployment, LanzaTech has sought international patent protection for its ethanol production process and is forming partnerships to commercialize its technologies and processes.

Khosla Ventures offers venture assistance, strategic advice and capital to entrepreneurs. The firm helps entrepreneurs extend the potential of their ideas in both traditional venture areas like the Internet, computing, mobile, and silicon technology arenas but also supports breakthrough scientific work in clean technology areas such as bio-refineries for energy and bioplastics, solar, battery and other environmentally friendly technologies.

British White Cattle - Let's Keep "Chasing" Pursuit of Hard Data to Present to the Beef Industry

As British White breeders we daily face lack of acceptance in the mainstream Beef Industry as our cattle are white hided and haven't been the subject of University studies (any breeder or patron out there that might be interested in donating cattle or semen for MARC studies or University studies, please do contact the British White Cattle Association of America at 903-965-7718). We are likely perceived by some in the beef industry as "chasing" a goal that is unwanted or unnecessary as there are some closed-minded industry perceptions about what works and what doesn't when it comes to established beef breeds and beef production, and know-it-alls such as described in the article excerpt below, think they. . . know it all.

As British White breeders we know we have cattle with excellent maternal traits, fertility, hardiness in wide ranging climates, calving life longevity upwards of twenty years, well set udders that withstand the rigors of years of suckling calves without "falling down", excellent carcass quality, genectically gentle dispositions, and more. But, we do need to pursue or "chase" documenting those outstanding qualities through some or all of the following -- Conscientious recording of growth trait data such as weaning weights and yearling weights; establishing Ultrasound Guidelines for the breed and pursuing the capture of yearling bull and heifer carcass ultrasound data by certified technicians; adding to the growing pool of DNA data for the currently identified markers for Marbling and Tenderness; establishing an annual Feedlot test for crossbred and purebred feeder steers and heifers; seeking out Bull Performance tests in our local areas for our bull candidates.

The following is an excerpt from "CAB Cattle Update: The “C” word". Click the Title link above for the text of the whole article.

". . . It’s usually better to lead than chase cattle, but one calorie-counting authority estimates a moderate walk in non-strenuous cattle chasing burns 238 calories per hour for a 150-pound person. At that rate, it would take more than three hours to walk off a Big Mac.

You may be thinking of another idiom: cut to the chase, or get to the point.

Some beef industry pundits proclaim ideal pathways for all logical producers. Dissenters are deluded and must be “chasing” something.

You can sense the judgment and condemnation in the cliché warning, “don’t chase single-trait selection.” It’s such an obvious no-no that the only surprise is that we keep seeing the warning. There is usually an agenda, such as to imply that if you so much as include some popular trait, you are off on a rabbit trail. If you know the phrase at all, you know it’s like saying, “don’t chase your tail.”

Some intense cattlemen lash out with the “c” word. They may include their goals and aspirations, which never include so much as a stray glance at what they own as a senseless pursuit. However, those who see things differently are condescendingly lamented as chasing an illusive and impractical dream.

The most chased-after end seems to be genetic selection that would add value to the beef we sell to consumers. One might as well chase ping-pong balls or a cure for cancer. Critics include the range of those who see any attention to post-weaning traits as silly, to those who see it as a noble, if impossible dream.

When the rhetoric starts flying, a critic may deplore “chasing” something or other. He will usually balance that by pointing out the further errors of “ignoring” and “sacrificing” other things. The implication is that those slighted pursuits are at least as worthy as that being chased after, but the chaser is too blind to see.

It all boils down to bias in the critic. Look at their cattle, their field of study, perhaps their life’s work. They may not realize their bias or the condescending nature of their chase to enlighten others. Or, they could be using loaded words in a calculated manner to sell something. . ."<

Square Bales in a Round Ring - Not Quite a Fit! For People or For Hay..........

Southeast Texas just had a few days of temperatures reaching the freezing point, seems unusual for this time of year, but fortunately no pipes burst and the ice in the troughs was minimal, but then lately I've got water leaks on what seems a daily basis, that's surely as effective at preventing pipes from bursting as setting a faucet on drip!

I've been feeding alfalfa as a supplement for my British Whites some years now, but it was only this past winter that had me wishing for square hay feeders. Prior to last winter I fed the alfalfa in flakes on top of their round bales of coastal and that worked fairly well. But last winter saw a shortage of hay and the coastal I had lined up didn't work out. With greed running rampant in the hay business, the price of good coastal hay per bale plus delivery to my place was equal to and sometimes more than the cost of shipping in cow grade alfalfa from Nebraska. Thus I chose to ship in nothing but alfalfa last winter, and my cattle thrived like no other winter.

Shipping costs ran higher this year, but the total out of pocket cost per ton for Dairy Quality alfalfa was still equal to or less than buying a decent quality 20% protein grain by the ton in 50 lb bags. So this year I'm feeding coastal baled from my pastures as well as crabgrass hay out of Louisiana, and providing alfalfa as their supplemental protein, but feeding it by the bale rather than topping round bales of regular hay forage with the alfalfa.

As you can see from the photo, the big alfalfa squares barely fit into my rings and I have to bust up that middle once they've eaten down enough of it to make it doable (also, these girls are getting alfalfa from last summer that went through a 20 plus inch flood, thus the dark bottom side that you see!) -- to make the hay accessible all around the feeding area of the ring. I'm hoping a welding shop in Pennington will be able to make some square feeders for me. I've looked around online and most of what I find is very very heavy square hay feeders from up North that look more functional as stationary objects in a feedlot, which will not work here. I try to move the haying area all around my pastures to avoid excessive manure build up, and follow up with busting up the manure with a drag harrow. In the second photo you can see the adjoining pasture where my big herd is being fed and that it's time to move their hay rings to fresh ground. I try not to feed more than twice without moving the rings to clean ground, and so really heavy feeders aren't practical.

Grassfed Beef Protocol - Results of Jimmie's Initial Research Into Why Grassfed?

When I first became involved in the cattle business, which has only been since 2000, I ran across articles and comments about the higher nutritional plane of grass fed beef and grass fed dairy products. Since that beginning which piqued my interest, the Omega Plus eggs have come to market, organizations like US Wellness Meats cut their ribbon and began a successful growing and marketing plan for grass fed animal products. More and more small ranchers have paid attention and are focusing their breeding efforts on producing a steer that will fatten well and eat well on a diet solely based on grass and legumes. There is no question that grain fed beef has unnaturally high Omega 6 Fatty Acids, and very low levels of Omega 3 Fatty Acids, Conjugated Linoleic Acids (CLA's), Beta Carotene, and Vitamin E - several of the more important components contributing to the optimal function and maintenance of the human body. The Omega 3 Fatty Acids and the CLA's are of particular importance as beef and bovine dairy products are (or once were) major sources of these nutrients in the human diet.

As I've finally decided to actually harvest one of my steers, I want to fatten him up in such a way as to optimize the nutrition of the beef that I'll be putting in the freezer. (I'm a seedstock producer of British White cattle, and it's taken me since 2000 to get over the idea that these beautiful, gentle cattle couldn't find a place on my plate.) For all that I've read here and there about the benefits of grass fed beef, I found I was still uncertain as to what protocol was really required to produce grass fed meat with optimum nutrition.

Most of the really in-depth, reader friendly articles and narratives (of which there are many extremely well done and informative works) are written by those who have a grass fed product to sell and naturally they would be expected to promote their protocol as the 'the one' that is best. Pretty much across the board, all producers of grass fed beef indicate that the beef must be 100% grass fed. As my steer received grain last winter, I had to wonder if it was possible to overcome that effect by grass 'finishing'. I should mention that early this past summer of 2004 I began feeding dairy quality alfalfa hay to all my cattle, and intend to continue on this regimen as long as I'm raising cattle and can get the hay. I'm most definitely a convert to grass based production.

Based on the research data I've explored, I'm of the opinion that supplementing a growing steers diet with a grain product for a short period of time doesn't severely impact the nutritional quality of the meat. What is most important is that the final period of finishing be 100% grass and legumes. The final period of finishing would likely need to be a minimum of 60 days (though obviously the longer the better) to clear out the high Omega 6 levels in the fat of the animal and replace them with Omega 3's and CLA's, get the beta carotene levels (Vitamin A) in the fat of the animal up and raise the Vitamin E level in the muscle of the animal. No doubt I will be disagreed with vociferously by purists of grass fed beef production. I welcome that, as well as direction to the research that will prove otherwise.

When we humans eat, the vitamins and minerals are broken down in our gut and make it to our blood stream where they go where they're supposed to go - some are water soluble, like Vitamin C, and our bodies use what we need and excrete the rest. Other's are fat soluble, like beta carotene, and the amounts we consume in excess are stored in our fat and used by our body as needed. Apparently, the same is true for Omega 6's - no doubt most of us have entirely too much stored in our body fat due to the grain fed meat and milk we consume, but Omega 6 isn't stored in our body fat forever; it's there to be used by our bodies, like the beta carotene that is stored in our fat, and we use it up. If we know that consuming high Omega 3 foods, like grass fed beef, works to restore the recommended optimal balance of Omega 6 to Omega 3 in our own bodies, then surely we can get the Omega 6 levels reduced and Omega 3's raised in a beef steer. Same goes for beta carotene, vitamin E, and CLA's.

Now obviously I'm not a scientist, and my opinion is just that, an opinion, or rather an educated guess based on simple logic and review of some of the various research articles cited on this web site which explore the opposite side of this argument, i.e. the change in the nutritional plane of a grass fed animal once it is placed on grain feed.

I'm going to finish my steer on spring grass and alfalfa, and hopefully harvest him around May of 2005. Once I have a look at the beef, I'm guessing he will have nicely yellowed fat (beta carotene), bright red color (Vitamin E), sweet gamey taste (my crimson clover and coastal bermuda and the CLA's), 1/4 inch backfat (trait of the British White breed), and the steaks will be lean and finely marbled (trait of the British White breed). (Note: Will update here shortly, the exellent results upon final harvest of "Dinner", the name my little sister gave him one Thanksgiving when we were working the herd!)

I should also add a highly interesting bit of information regarding the very final phase of preparing a grass fed animal for slaughter. It seems that beef animals, like we humans, store glycogen from the carbohydrates in their diet. A grass based diet is naturally low in carbohydrates; a grain based diet is high in carbohydrates. As the grass fed beef animal has low stores of glycogen, it's seems to be fairly easy to deplete those glycogen stores in a matter of hours under stress or exercise. Depletion of glycogen causes dark-cutting meat; thus it is very important that the grass fed animal be handled as humanely as possible in the hours leading up to kill. Harvesting the animal in sync with lush seasonal grasses will give you the highest glycogen level at harvest as well as providing optimal nutrition in the end product.

Electronic Carcass Grading in Our Slaughter Plants - EID Next? They'll Be Able to Track where that Carcass came from? Breed, Owner, Etc...

Now that the USDA has approved the use of these new grading instruments, there will be much less error in sorting carcasses to standard, select, choice, or prime. What may surely follow this new grading approach is the ability for these same electronic grading devices to capture the EID of the carcass. Once that happens, the carcass quality of your feeder calves that result from your farm or ranch operation will be identified..........and the Feedlot buyers will hear it from the packing houses, and those Feedlot Buyers will begin targeting calves from cattle operations that are bringing home the Choice and Prime for the Packing house....cause that's what brings home the money in this business!

We need to seriously consider establishing Ultrasound Guidelines for our yearling bulls that are potential herd prospects, as well as our yearling heifers. Wouldn't it be a nice if when the day comes that carcasses can be identified straight to the source those Packing houses find that British White carcasses are grading a very high percentage choice and prime!

Increased demand for British White bulls in commercial operations will only come with recognition of the value of their carcass traits. Ultrasound measurements are an invaluable tool in selecting/breeding our seedstock to produce desirable and heritable carcass traits. Always remember that a 'fat calf' in no way means it's a calf that will produce a choice or prime carcass. Underneath all those layers of fat, a very standard grade ribeye could easily be lurking!

USDA Approves Two Instrument Systems For Beef Carcass Marbling Scores

The Cattle Network, November 20, 2006

EXCERPTS:

"They overlooked one of the most ground breaking advances in the long and checkered history of beef grading. For the first time, the beef industry has a reliable system capable of consistently determining marbling scores without the uncertainty of fallible human eyes."

"Consistent grading, however, has been a problem from its earliest days; a USDA inspector eyeballed every ribeye and made a decision about each carcass in a scant few seconds. It’s a fatigue inducing job that requires a changeover of personnel every 30 minutes. Blink and you miss seeing something critical. Rub your eye and two rib eyes could speed by unseen. Had a rough night? Those bleary eyes probably aren’t going to see things the same way they did a few days ago. And, of course, a purely visual grade assignment is hardly a way to insure consistency."

"Grading errors are costly. Judge a carcass too low and the plant loses money. Judge it too high and a consumer will be disappointed with the eating “experience” and might be lost as a customer."

"RMS personnel spent three days and captured data on over 4,000 animals at each plant. With thousands of observations, they met the agreed upon standard of consistency exceeding 95%."

". .“It’s a computer vision system,” said Goldberg. “A cable connects a color camera to a computer. The operator takes a picture of each rib eye and the picture is digitized and sent to the computer. The operator has data on the rib eye area, meat and fat color, fine and coarse marbling and other measures before he can take the camera away. It takes about one second to analyze the image and display the results.” . . "

GrassFed British White Beef - Superior Genetics

Consider this.....with the price of beef skyrocketing at the market these days, and the healthful quality of that beef very questionable.....isn't it time to consider seeking out healthy natural grassfed beef straight from the producer? Buying a whole beef is maybe too much too handle, but you can find a friend to take a side of beef and you the other, about 300 or so pounds of beef you'd need to find space in the freezer for.

If you buy straight from a Grassfed producer you would pay from $1 to $1.50 a pound live weight of the steer, you'd then pay the processor about .40 cents a pound to cut and wrap it the way you want them to. Average cost per pound of beef for your family just dropped tremendously, and you're providing yourself and your children with the best of nutrition..........you won't worry so much if their diet is nothing but hamburgers.....it will be hamburgers providing optimal Fatty Acids, CLA's, Vitamin E, Vitamin A......and more.

Put fresh beef in the freezer and you'll never shop for grocery store beef again. Guaranteed. Put Grassfed beef in the freezer and you won't have to worry so much about the fat in that delicious ribeye, it will be heart healthy fat you can enjoy.