Food for thought
It is next to impossible for a member of the public to gain entry to an intensive farm in the UK. “Sorry, we’re a high risk farm, we can’t allow visitors.” This was the response I received at every conventional animal-rearing farm I contacted in the North Yorkshire area.
Alarm bells are ringing and the question begs: what on earth are they hiding? You won’t be surprised to hear that they are decidedly mute on the subject.
The same cannot be said for food warriors like Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall who are taking part in Channel 4’s Great British Food Fight. They are pioneering a change in the way we think about meat and bringing it to the forefront of the British consciousness, highlighting pertinent issues within the trade. Essentially the meat industry is flawed, hugely so, and not least in the lack of information available. Until recently our ability to make informed choices when we buy meat has been limited. These public campaigns are gradually changing the level of our knowledge, but there are still many myths and misunderstandings.
“I think organic meat is farmed with lots of space for the animals to roam free. I’m not sure though, do they wait until they die?” a second year Music student asks when I question her. This lack of understanding is common, even among those who deal in meat professionally. Ian Sinton, of The Shambles Butchers in York, is quick to tell me how much of a “con” organic farming is, but in the same breath admits that he knows little about it. “If you have cattle in one field eating organic grass,” he says, “and in the next field a farmer sprays his GM crops, then you’ve got GM chemicals coming across on the wind. You can’t guarantee that what an animal is eating is organic.” “Bollocks!” exclaims Richard Hudson, founder and farmer of Paradise Farm, an organic farm set in the surrounding Yorkshire vales. “There are people who say ‘what about bees? That bee will have come from over there and it will have brought the chemicals with him.’ Well that’s absolutely true, but there is also the rain which contains all sorts of chemicals. You’ve got to be practical and realistic about it. Our fields have got 4 metre margins around the outside and big hedges. It’s illegal to spray in the wind so any kind of contact with non-organic materials is absolutely minimal. People with views like the butcher and my dad who is a conventional farmer are just ignorant I’m afraid. People still think it is a bit hippified and unrealistic.”
On the contrary, organic farming is a method that “places a strong emphasis on protecting the environment,” explain the Soil Association, one of the bodies that regulate organic practices with a strict code that the farmer must adhere to. Their website outlines the three main features that one should expect from organic farming: “Organic farming severely restricts the use of artificial chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Organic farmers rely on developing a healthy, fertile soil and growing a mixture of crops.
Animals are reared without the routine use of drugs, antibiotics and wormers common in intensive livestock farming… It’s more of a holistic approach.” Hudson expands: “The idea here is that everything comes from the farm. The animals are fed our grains, potatoes, grass and we only fertilise the land using their manure and by sewing clover which restores nutrients into the earth. It’s a minimum input approach, that’s the biggest difference. As a result our yields are lower.
“It is debatable whether organic food could feed the world, I personally doubt it, but I think it’s an important part of agriculture. Organic farming is much more fun because you don’t just ring an agronomist [who analyses the balance of nutrients in the earth], to ask how the crop’s doing so he can tell you to add xyz to your fertilizer. Then you just sit on the sprayer the whole time and have no connection with the land. The best thing about our method is if you’ve got a problem you go and deal with it. It’s a physical bias to things, not chemical.”
Aside from chemically fertilising their crops, what is it that conventional farmers do to affect the welfare of their animals that has ethical foodies and animal rights activists up in arms? The most commonly known issue is that of battery chickens. With approximately 800 million birds in the country (which equates to 13 birds per person), Britain is the largest producer of chicken in the EU. It isn’t hard to see how this demand has driven the industry to extreme measures in order to sustain itself. Although we are now more familiar with the terms ‘barn hens,’ ‘free range’ and ‘organic,’ our understanding of what they mean is limited, with no thanks to ambiguous labelling adopted by supermarkets. Terms like ‘farm fresh’ and ‘corn fed’ are so vague as to mean nothing and hold no legally binding criteria.
The difference between battery hens and organic chickens is vast, and the same can be said of all other intensively farmed animals and those that are organically reared. Within these two practices is a whole spectrum of choice, and each method will fall into one of two brackets: intensive or extensive farming. Essentially, intensively farmed animals are subject to rigorous methods of cost cutting. High stocking density, a much talked about issue, in the case of chickens means that farms may fill their barns with as many as 15-17 adult birds per square metre. Add to this conditions which may include poor ventilation, lack of natural light, loud noise and no areas to perch, injuries such as bruising and broken bones are rife and you’ll find the death toll alarmingly high. A medley of preventative inoculations and routine antibiotics are required to keep the animals alive. Yet, for an intensive farmer, I was shocked to discover, mortality rate is calculated into the costing plan. Fearnley-Whittingstall highlights in The River Cottage Meat Book, that there are “acceptable” percentages of mortality relating to different animals, for chickens this is sometimes as high as 30%.
The Little Red Tractor logo of Assured Food Standards goes some way to ensuring the welfare of animals by promising a set of criteria which appear impressive yet which actually just ensure that the farmer maintains the Government standard recommendations. However, by bearing the logo the farmer agrees to inspection at any point and so is one step closer to a more transparent system.
The RSPCA’s Freedom Food label takes the next step by improving the space allotted per animal, allowing in more natural light, and sometimes, in the case of chickens, encouraging them to scratch around in outside areas, providing space for up to 12 chickens per square metre. This leads me to free range practices which many people are now familiar with. Not all can claim to offer such high standards as the RSPCA’s free range line, but as suggested in the title, the animals are given outdoor space to roam in. This is known as extensive farming because it makes use of the outdoors yet, to use the example of poultry once again, according to EU ruling there are no restrictions on the size of the stock which can be in the thousands. It makes one question what brash claims can be made to raise the price of meat. Not all farmers are so financially led however, and many choose to allow their animals higher welfare standards than the minimum requirements.
Last among the main categories of meat production is the aforementioned organic label. This is extensive farming at its pinnacle; animals are reared outdoors whenever the weather is suitable and subsequently spend the majority of their lives grazing. Hudson tells me that his cows are each allocated at least an acre during the summer months outside. When I visited early one morning they were happily munching potatoes in a spacious, hay-filled barn. The chickens were roaming free around the farm pecking in the mud and two month old piglets frolicked in their pen. These are the happy animals that so many are sceptical about. But if you can believe that a happy animal is a better animal to feed yourself for health and taste reasons then look out for the Soil Association logo which demands the strictest of standards, but be aware that meat may be organically certified by another association with different requirements.
If you really couldn’t care less about the lives of the animals (and why not?), then you may be more interested to know how different practices can affect the taste. Intensive animals are subject to large doses of chemicals through inoculations and antibiotics. This results in a much higher bodily water retention which gives the animal greater weight. This is convenient for the business minded who can subsequently charge a higher price per kilo for their meat. But it is not only the farmer who is responsible for the quality of the meat we eat. Much is down to the butcher whose job it is to hang the meat. The process of hanging an animal after slaughter contributes greatly to the tenderness and water content of the meat. Hanging times vary from species to species; for beef two weeks is ample but the period is shorter for pork and lamb, which only need 5-7 days. Executed properly, the practice does three things. The first is to allow the water in the body to drain from the animal; oddly this produces a moister piece of meat once cooked. The second is to gradually allow the flesh to break down and become more elastic in texture. This not only makes it more tender but, along with a lower water content, means that if the meat is to be frozen the risk of fibres snapping is greatly reduced. Broken fibres may not sound alarming, but if you’ve ever bit into a piece of chicken and wondered why the texture was pulpy that’s your answer. The final rationale for allowing meat to age is to develop the flavour.
This is the reason much of the meat found in supermarkets is lacking in character. A trip to a well known supermarket chain confirmed my suspicions; although the helpful boy behind the counter assured me their meat was hung for ‘up to 21 days,’ when I delved a little further the butcher produced a large hunk of meat stored in a vacuum pack. He went on to explain that as soon as the animal is killed it is cut into large chunks and immediately vacuum packed before it is ‘hung’ for four days and put on the shelf up to 21 days later. The supermarket concept of ‘hanging’ is fundamentally warped and allows for very little aging and no water drainage. Consequently, the customer is offered substandard meat as standard and asked to pay a premium for meat treated with the more traditional practices. It’s not surprising then to hear from Sinton that “a lot of people give [him] a funny look if the meat is a bit dark because they’re still unaware of hanging times. If it’s dark they’ll turn they’re noses up and say it looks old. We’re conditioned to everything being bright red which isn’t the best quality.”
Let us not forget, this intensive industry has arisen out of a demand for cheap meat. The Government subsidises the conventional farming industry to keep farmers in business and enable them to push prices down so that we can afford to eat meat. But it is not meat that our diet is lacking, rather a full dose of fresh fruit and vegetables. I am not alone in proposing we eat less meat and this voice is gradually getting louder and more universally heard. For those of you unwilling to give up such a staple perhaps you would consider substituting your regular steak or chicken breast for a cheaper cut such as scrag end (the neck of the lamb), oxtail, or even try liver, kidney and tongue. If you are not the adventurous kind then maybe pork belly or shoulder of lamb will appeal more. You might be pleasantly surprised to see how far your money stretches.
The question of where you purchase your meat will also have a bearing on the weight of your purse. Local butchers are often cheaper than your trusted supermarket. Moreover, the butcher can cater for your requests, make suggestions about unknown cuts and hopefully tell you about the origin and welfare of the animal. You will be supporting a local business, and by proxy, hopefully a local farm too. I can recommend David Swain’s stall at the market in town. He provides comprehensive information about his stock and gives a very friendly service.
My friends call me a fake vegetarian. The truth is, I’m a meat lover masquerading as a veggie out of convenience. This negates long-winded explanations potentially resulting in awkward feelings when I am offered meat. However, I feel strongly that this is an issue that should be brought to public attention. I have only just touched the surface of the vast subject of meat production, but I have hopefully given you some food for thought.
Loading ...
Fantastic article. I think we really do have our priorities wrong when it comes to food; I’m so sick of hearing people who go out and get hammered several times a week and insist on eating meat with every meal say that they ‘can’t afford’ to buy good quality meat. It’s time for a change!
“the meat industry is flawed”
Is it? That’s a rather sweeping statement which you don’t really qualify. In what way is the meat industry flawed?
I am sorry but I think you are displaying amazing naievity. If you wish to visit a farm of almost any type you only have to ask an organisation like FACE (Farming and Countryside Education), LEAF or the NFU and it will be arranged.
Try ‘Open Farm Sunday’ if you are really interested and pick from a wide range of options.
However well done for having the courage to express your views.
yeah the butchers at the market in town are great. the meat is always better quality and half the price of the supermarkets.
The argument that organic meat couldn’t feed the world is erroneous in a sense that most people never think about. The processes and resources required for meat, organic and not organic, are themselves not sustainable,
One pound of beef requires twenty pounds in grains. A great amount of the plant crops produced is being fed to animals to be slaughtered for consumption or confined while producing things such as milk or eggs.
When it comes to food production and land scarcity, meat/dairy/etc are simply inefficient and wasteful in both senses.
It’s probably an uncomfortable truth for a lot of people (and I do sympathise as, like the author, I’m a meat-lover struggling to be veggie) but Stewart is absolutely right about the inherent inefficiency and waste in the meat industry. Eating less meat, without necessarily becoming completely vegetarian, is a positive step and if meat is something relatively rare in your diet, it’s more affordable to be discerning about quality and welfare when you do have it.
Growing and consuming organic foods was the normal way of life for our forefathers. Most people are not aware that synthetically packaged foods (made with synthetic ingredients and chemicals to prolong the preservation process) really only came around in the mid 1900s. Today, many smart consumers have returned to this healthier practice of eating fresh and organically grown foods where the production process is devoid of non-organic pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides.