 Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Peter Ballerstead, and I'm a forage agronomist. I'm a supporter of forage agriculture in general, and grass-based animal production systems in particular. I promote the information and technology that will improve our utilization of these resources, and I promote the role of animal products in the human diet. I want to be sure. Oh, thank you. I want to be sure everybody understands that before I get too much further, OK? I am concerned about some of the things I hear folks say about grass-fed meat. Conventional wisdom can be defined as ideas or expectations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. Such ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined. And unqualified societal discourse preserves the status quo. I, like most of us, have had my own experience of reexamining the conventional wisdom on nutrition and health. I've come to see how far-reaching the low-fat diet is the healthy diet paradigm has become. In fact, some of the issues I'll examine today are, at least in part, fostered by that attitude. But I'm afraid we've created a new set of ideas or explanations that, though widely held, are unexamined. I hope that my presentation will spark an examination of some of these ideas and explanations. My sincere hope is that in doing so, we can find progress. Unfortunately, sustainability is not a transparent nor an objective term. It can mean different things and is often defined in ways that suits the author's purposes. The roots of vegetarianism are thoroughly intertwined with those of the organic and sustainable agricultural movements, as well as the old conventional wisdom. I remember a conversation with a leader in the organic industry in the early 90s. This person was prominent in the push for USDA organic labeling and certification, as well as the promotion of sustainable ag programs and the funding for them. We were having a conversation about grass-based animal production. I was told that animals have no place in sustainable agriculture. This position itself is factually unsustainable. Thank you. My key points today, whoops, yeah, there we are, are that grass-based agriculture, that is the conversion of forages into high-quality animal protein and animal fat is the only truly sustainable form of agriculture we can ever hope to have. Anything else is going to mark a compromise from that, legitimate as that might be. And that many of the commonly expressed concerns about today's meat supplies are not supported by the evidence. Now, positive change can only occur if we have an accurate appraisal of where, in fact, we are. First, I'd like to offer some background information. Forages are herbaceous plants or plant parts fed to domestic animals. They are not roughage, which is the less digestible plant material, think wheat straw. They can be native or non-native species. Grasslands have been critical to the story of humanity, as we heard in the very first talk this morning. They are the largest and arguably most important ecosystem in the world. 26% to 40% of the Earth's land surface, depending on how you want to define it, are occupied in grassland, or that's their classification, ecologically. While a significant portion of these lands are, in fact, incapable of producing crops directly utilizable by humans, 70% of the world's agricultural area, in fact, falls within the biome known as grassland. Plants store the carbon they fix in photosynthesis, primarily as cellulose and starch. These compounds are both polysaccharides made up of thousands of glucose molecules, both bonded at the same position, but differing in their structure. When alpha-D glucose units are linked 1,4, it produces starch, a substance that we can obviously utilize. When beta-D glucose units are linked 1,4, it produces cellulose, the most abundant form of carbon in the biosphere, but a form that is not utilizable by most vertebrates. The primary conversion of this stored solar energy into a utilizable form is accomplished by a number of microorganisms that alone produce cellulase, the enzyme necessary to cleave the beta-1,4 bonds. Ruminants are a critical group of primary consumers within grassland ecosystems. There are about 150 species of ruminants, both domestic and wild species. And most of these animals, with the exception perhaps of these last four, have been managed by human beings to one extent or another throughout our history. Approximately a third of the global meat supply comes from ruminants. These animals also supply work in the way of draft animals, fiber, milk, meat, and hides. They possess the specialized anatomy that facilitates pre-gastric microbial fermentation. What that means is that these animals can ingest a low-fat diet, and yet end up digesting a high-fat diet. The typical diet of an animal grazing grass is about less than 5% crude fat. The typical cow, once she gets done absorbing the volatile fatty acids that are the principal component of microbial fermentation, 60% to 70% of her energy needs are coming from those volatile fatty acids. So she's digesting a high-fat diet. What we're in fact doing is we're feeding the microbes, which then feed the cow. There is phenomenal production potential from grass. When I talk to my friends that I grew up with in Philadelphia, I need to make sure that they know I'm talking about this kind of grass. Yeah, I got a master's in weed science and a doctorate in grass. God bless America. 14 pounds of dry matter from a perennial ryegrass white clover pasture can be converted into a pound of carcass weight. Seven pounds of that same dry matter can produce a pound of milk fat. Under ideal conditions, we can produce upwards of 25,000 pounds of dry matter per acre per year from a perennial ryegrass white clover pasture. Unfortunately, we can't do it consistently throughout the year. Unfortunately, the animals feed requirements are not consistent through the year. That's where the management comes in. This is the potential. The energy equivalent of this kind of dry matter is equivalent to what traditional nutrition calls concentrates. It is equivalent, essentially, to barley. There was more there. OK, so that's what I just said. But the systems required to achieve this kind of production are not low input, particularly when we include the renewable inputs of knowledge and management. We can't just put a fence around a field, throw some animals out there, and have the whole thing work. It's not natural. But high levels of production per acre, most importantly at low cost of production, are being achieved throughout the world. And current record high grain prices will be an incentive to wider adoption. Agronomy is the application of soil and plant sciences to crop production. So with that as background and with a sincere desire not to fool myself or anyone else, I'd like to look at four areas and ideas and explanations that are frequently mentioned within our primal, paleo community. The four that I'm going to look at are environmental, management, nutrition, and health. First to environmental. It's a point missed frequently, but any carbon a cow emits, we'll use the euphemism, because this isn't an ag audience, so I got to clean it up, must come from the food that she eats, OK? Any carbon in the grass a cow eats must come from the atmosphere because plants don't take it up through their roots, OK? So we're talking at least about a cycle. But to what degree does it cycle? Well, this is pretty standard information. The carbon to nitrogen ratio of this kind of dry matter is 17, 3.4% nitrogen. That means 57.8% carbon in the dry matter. 3% body weight intake on a daily basis of dry matter for 1,000-pound cow, that's 30 pounds of dry matter. In order for her to get that, we assume a 70% utilization. That means I have to offer her 42.8 pounds in order for her to eat 30. We'll assume equal above and below ground dry matter distribution. That means the aerial portion of the plant dry matter essentially equals the root portion, OK? And 90% of the carbon that she consumes, she's going to emit. That's a flexible number. We can change that. Given that, the end result is that for every pound of carbon emitted, 3.2 pounds of carbon are fixed, either in roots or in plant debris above the surface or in the cow herself or in her calf if she's suckling a calf. So every time that circle turns, 3.2 pounds of carbon leave it. Hardly sounds like an enrichment to me, yet people lose that point. They only look at what's emitted when they talk about this. So we can look at that accumulation right there. Get a sense of what we think about that kind of idea. Cattle or carbon negative. How about forages versus grain? Well, in the United States, most of the feed that's consumed by the livestock in the United States is already forage. 2 thirds of the feed that goes to feeding the nation's livestock herd, all classes listed here, is forage. Cattle, on the other hand, 83% of the feed units that go into feeding the nation's cow herd, beef cow, is forage. And that's primarily because, yes, when animals go on to feed, they eat a higher concentrate diet, but they're only on feed for about four months. The rest of the time, they're on grass, as are the cows and the bulls and the heifers. In fact, of all the feed, all the concentrate fed to livestock in the United States, less than 26% goes into feeding beef. If you believe that the human diet ought to be based on animal products and not cereal products, then our health is already grass-based. Could we get better? Sure. But this is where we're starting from. Work with me. Thank you. All right. The literature on grass-fed meat is extremely problematic. Basically, it started at the height of the fat is bad. And so you'll find them saying, it's lower in fat. It's lower in saturated fat. It's lower in cholesterol, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Maybe that's true, and I'm not saying they're lying. But that's completely immaterial to me. You've heard the story of the ad, really, of the ad. Never mind. OK, so if we look at this, what we see is that the ratios measured in these eight studies for omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids for grass-fed versus grain fed are nowhere near the range that people commonly refer to them as. The range here goes from 1.4 to 3.7 to 1 for grass-fed, 3 to 13.6 to 1 for the grain fed. So they're tremendously variable, and the difference is not as great as is commonly reported. How important is that difference? I don't think we honestly know. It is, however, possible, as reported in this study, to feed a significant amount of grain to animals on pasture and not produce a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in the meat. 3.77 to 1 occurred when they were feeding 1% of live weight in corn, in addition to them grazing pasture, and 3% of live weight could represent a third of the typical feedlot total mixed ration. So that concentrate and forage mixed together, that 1% of just grain would represent a third of the amount that they would typically eat. If we look at the ratios, however, and focus on that, we avoid or ignore what's actually there in terms of amounts. So if we look at beef, conventional beef at the top, and compare it to grass-fed beef on the second line, the question is, how important is 180 milligrams more omega-6 per 4-ounce raw portion than the grass-fed? Or how important is the 32 milligrams less omega-3 per 4-ounce portion in the grass-fed than the grain-fed? I don't think we know. One thing we do know, however, is we're going to lose a significant amount of both of them when we cook it. And unfortunately, that's not a symmetrical loss. We lose less than a third of the omega-6 is lost in cooking when 70-some percent of the omega-3 is. How important is that? I don't know. Look at the low ratio for walnuts. If you just looked at that ratio, you'd ignore the fact that you're getting over 10,000, almost 11,000 milligrams of omega-6 per ounce. So if you're spending extra for your grass-fed meat because you want to avoid the omega-6, don't be eating walnuts. Or any of these other top seven items. Is that important? I don't know, but that's the reality. So moving right along, considering the topic of the use of hormones in beef production, it is important to understand just how much we human beings normally produce and then how much is actually contained in the meat. So when we look at a 3-ounce steak from an animal that was not treated with exogenous hormones, we have 1.3 nanograms per 3-ounce portion. Compare that to 1.9 nanograms from one that had been implanted. Is that significant? I don't know. But if you're worried about this kind of difference, then what you ought to also know is there's lots of sources for estrogen. So you would have to eat 22 pounds of implanted beef to provide the estrogen provided by 3 ounces of cabbage. Or 29 pounds to equal the estrogen that would be contained in 3 ounces of chicken eggs. Is that a problem? I don't think so. But if you're not worried about this, then don't be worried about the beef. Or if you're going to be worried about the beef, then be worried about this more because this is far greater. And then don't eat soy beans at all. Don't come talking to me about implanted beef if you're eating soy. Just let's part on friendly terms. So there's several other topics that we could talk about. Time does not permit. They are all problematic when you start digging into the actual literature. And I'd be happy to talk about these. None of these stand up. Now, Justus von Liebig has given credit for it. But actually, Carl Spengel actually developed the principle of the law of the minimum. There's a lesson there for all of us. Liebig took it and used an analogy of a plant of a rain barrel. So simply stated, plant growth will be limited by some factor. And so long as that factor is not adequate, increasing inputs of other factors will not produce an economic return. Liebig used the analogy of a wooden rain barrel with staves of different length, with the shortest stave setting the volume of the barrel representing the yield of the crop. In this case, phosphorus here is the short stave in the barrel. That's what's limiting yield. If that stave is increased sufficiently, it will no longer be limiting because another stave has become limiting, in this case, nitrogen. I suggest that we apply this concept to health where the shortest stave would represent the greatest insult to health. So here's the application. Situation one, we take someone eating the standard American diet. We replace the beef that they're eating equal amounts with grass-fed or organic or natural beef. What impact should we expect to see in their health? I don't believe we have a right to expect to see any impact on their health, if that's the only change that we make. Situation two, we take someone eating the sad. We replace the majority of their carbohydrate calories with calories from commercially produced animal products. What impact should we expect to see? And I would suggest that we have ample evidence that we will see a dramatic impact. Now at some point, might some other factors come into play? Absolutely. That's what the barrel's about. But let's address the short stave first. And if we're talking about population-wide recommendations, then what right do we have to tell somebody who can hardly afford to eat the way they're eating now that they must spend more for a product that we have no data to suggest will have a significant impact on their health? There's lots of reasons to eat grass-fed beef. I got a freezer full of it at home. But the data that I just reviewed suggests that ain't it. Perhaps the problem is not the grain-fed cattle, it's the grain-fed people. So what are the other problems with grain-fed beef? Why do you choose grass-fed beef, especially from an environmental standpoint? You didn't talk about reactant nitrogen or anything. Well, when beef is on sale at Safeway, we buy Safeway beef. The environmental impacts, again, we have to be careful with just exactly what impacts we're looking at. So I'm convinced that we could do a far better job than what we're doing now. But I'm also convinced that we're doing a pretty good job now, given what we're doing. One thought experiment is to say that we have somehow managed to maintain beef production in this country on an ever-decreasing beef herd. We're producing the same amount of beef on fewer and fewer animals. Fewer animals means less environmental impact. So if we're going to go to a system that means we have to have more animals to produce the same amount, we're going to increase the environmental impact by doing that. And I don't know exactly how to attribute that. Clearly, forage-based agriculture provides a number of benefits over the row crop commodity grain production. And that was a slide I took out in the interest of time. And those are long-standing and well understood, and I could list them. So any system that gets us more toward a forage base, even on our cultivated land, is going to be beneficial in terms of soil erosion and water quality, both surface and ground. It's interesting right now, one of the big things in the corn and soybean industry is the use of cover crops. They're sort of coming back and rediscovering some of the attributes of forages that they forgot a few years ago. And so the capture of nutrients from that crop and the incorporation of organic matter into the soil, the improvement of soil structure, the preventing soil erosion, all those are benefits. Are you familiar with mob grazing? Yes. Fan of it? Yes. It's not the only tool, but it is a tool that some use. Could you give a brief, brief synopsis of that for everybody? OK. The question, and we might want to tip that microphone because I don't know how. The question was about a technique called mob grazing. And mob grazing is the idea that we're going to decrease or increase the stocking rate on a particular piece of ground by use of temporary fencing. And so we're going to try to get this piece of ground grazed off in a relatively short period of time. The amount of time varies based on a number of factors. That is one very effective tool at increasing the utilization and increasing the evenness of utilization, the evenness of dung and urine deposition onto the field, et cetera. Yeah. I've been told that it's almost like paleo grass fed for the animal because it's supposed to more simulate when they were in herds of much larger sizes than these. Yeah, I would agree with that. That's a cool idea. So when I found that out, we have the industrial meat and then we have grass fed meat. And then there's very few people. I mean, it seems to me there are very few people even growing doing grass fed meat in a very ideal fashion. But I have a bit of an ag background. And when I go to see the extension agents talk and whatnot, they've got the farmers reseeding their fields in a very suspicious way as if they've been educated by the seed producers and whatnot. And there are ways to do grass fed without and to get off seeding as well, right? Well, I work for a seed company. Ah, OK. Don't hate me for it. Final question. Offline, thanks. Yeah, we're fine behind. So we're going to have to wrap this up. Thank our speaker. Thank you.