Graze Anatomy

by Richard Manning

Click for full-size image Todd Churchill's cattle munch on tall fescue and red and white clover. Alessandra Sanguinetti

(Page 2 of 4)

SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS

Humans can't eat grass, an assertion that sounds odd, considering that something like three-quarters of all human nutrition comes from wheat, rice, and corn, all of which are grasses. But what we eat is actually their seeds, the dense package of complex carbohydrates that is the specialty of annual grasses. Perennial grasses, which are more common, devote a larger proportion of their energy to roots, stems, and leaves, and the building block of these is cellulose.

Humans cannot convert cellulose to protein, but cows can, thanks to their highly specialized stomachs-rumens, as in ruminants. "The rumen is the most magical chemical factory in the world," Winter says. "It can turn cellulose into meat." It is a highly specialized bio-digester; if it didn't exist, biotechnologists would be trying to invent it.

The health of the miniature ecosystem inside the rumen parallels the health of the larger ecosystem of the perennial pasture. The health of that larger system sponsors a rich microbial world beneath the soil, where lowly creatures like dung beetles and earthworms grind away at the task of cycling nutrients. Perennial grasses build deep roots that can extend more than 10 feet below the surface. Shallow-rooted annual crops rapidly deplete trace minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and iodine, but the roots of perennials act like elevators, lifting these minerals back into the system and making them available to plants and everything else on up the food chain.

Winter says almost every grain-fed cow has excessive acid in its body, largely because of the lack of calcium and magnesium in its diet. This acidity allows a whole range of parasites and diseases to gain a foothold. A grass diet neutralizes the problem and passes the benefits to humans, who, because of our narrow diets, are also short on these same trace minerals.

Grass-fed beef and milk also bring us the benefits of fat. The modern wave of obesity has made us fatophobes, but nutritional research is telling us we are obese and prone to heart disease not because we eat fat but because we eat the wrong kind of fat. Grain-fed beef is especially high in omega-6 fats and cholesterol. Grass-fed beef and dairy products are lower in both and higher in omega-3 fats and conjugated linoleic acid, which reduce the risk of heart disease and are lacking in our diets.Unlike the industrial feedlot system, which is designed to channel all inputs into a single product-meat protein-grass-fed livestock operations must focus on a series of complex, interlocking ecosystems. By paying attention to these, grass farmers are rewarded with their byproduct: beef or milk. Ideally, health resonates throughout these systems, including the human body.

Economists illuminate this idea with the concept of "externalities"-costs that are invisible to the market. As a former CPA, Churchill knows that being attentive to ecosystem health is a way of bringing externalities into the accounting process. The enterprise has to be profitable, and it is. Churchill and hundreds of farmers like him have found that they can take productive corn and soybean land and convert it to perennial pasture, and in the process make more money than highly subsidized corn and soybean farmers. This flies in the face of the assumptions of agricultural economists worldwide, who have traditionally believed that the highest and best use of the world's most productive lands is row-crop agriculture.

Churchill's balance sheet says otherwise, raising the possibility that entire regions of the globe, including the American heartland, don't need to remain environmental sacrifice zones.

 

Continued...

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments

  • Elizabeth Schafer wrote on February 28, 2009, 07:27AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    I'm not sure why growing grain is such an eco-disaster. The raising of beef cattle is more of an ecological threat than the production of grain or vegetables. I happen to be a proponent of a vegetarian diet, although I'm not strictly vegan. I think the world would be better off if people ate more beans and whole grains and less animal foods. Public health would improve, there would be less animal suffering and whole grains would feed people, not livestock (as would legumes, like soybeans). The production of grain is more expensive, when you feed it to cattle, but people need it for protein and the B-vitamin complex. Also beans cost less than meat to feed people.

  • Johanne Dion wrote on March 20, 2009, 02:39PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    In reply to Elizabeth and to those who did not understand the environmental impacts of growing grain: the grain discussed here is mostly transgenic modified corn or soy grown to feed CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

    The environmental impacts of those crops are multiple:

    - being annuals, it means the fields in which they grow is left bare for a large part of the year, resulting in soil erosion and watershed pollution.

    - being GMOs, it means they corrupt the natural gene pool of the countryside.

    - being monocultures, it means they basically make vast areas of the countryside left with no food for insects for a long part of the year.

    - being grown for maximum crop volumes, they need either lots of fertilisers (for corn) or pesticides (for corn and soy), meaning the additionnal burning of fuel to spread the fertilisers and pesticides, and also meaning that some of those will end up in the soil, in the aquifer or in the nearest lake or river. Fertilisers ending up in rivers and lakes are the main cause of algae blooms, and most pesticides in rivers and lakes are hormone-imitating substances causing havoc in fish and amphibian reproduction.

    - being monocultures, it means they are susceptible to pest infestations and crop failures (thus all the subsidies and crop failure insurance).

    The industrialisation of agriculture is not a pretty thing. Grass farming, I think, is a step in the right direction.

  • Elizabeth Schafer wrote on March 22, 2009, 12:25PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    You say that GMO's cause the use of added pesticides, but aren't GMO's designed to provide genetic pest resistance through the DNA of the plant? I, personally, think if we had better management of fields and control of development, as well as proper maintenance of brush country, that pesticides would be almost unnecessary. I'm not in favor of genetic altering of plants. Also importation of pests through illegal plant imports, like illegal drugs, may be a problem too.

View All 11 Comments

Comment on this article


Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | About OnEarth | All Authors | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Contact the Editors | NRDC Home

NRDC