Beef To School Program Receives Research Funding

A team of Montana State University researchers and community partners has been awarded a three-year, $220,000 grant to help Montana beef producers and meat processors and increase the use of local beef in Montana’s schools and communities. MSU photo by Kelly Gorham.

A team of Montana State University researchers and community partners has been awarded a three-year, $220,000 grant to help Montana beef producers and meat processors and increase the use of local beef in Montana’s schools and communities. MSU photo by Kelly Gorham.

MSU News Service – A team of Montana State University researchers and community partners has been awarded a three-year, $220,000 grant to help Montana beef producers and meat processors and increase the use of local beef in Montana’s schools and communities.

The grant, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, is intended to increase the availability and consumption of local beef in Montana’s schools and communities and help improve Montana beef producers’ and meat processors’ viability and sustainability. It is also intended to discern which “beef to school” methods are most sustainable for producers, processors and schools.

The team is led by Carmen Byker Shanks, assistant professor in the MSU Department of Health and Human Development.

In Montana and nationally, producers and consumers are beginning to see social, environmental and economic benefits from local procurement efforts that link ranchers and local beef processors with schools in their community and region, according to Byker Shanks. She added that the ‘beef to school’ efforts involve support of local beef from a variety of people, including producers, processors, and foodservices and students at K-12 schools.

“Beef to school efforts can increase the sustainability and viability of local and regional food systems,” Byker Shanks said. “The recently published 2015 dietary guidelines for Americans highlights that beef production has a potentially large impact on the environment. In Montana and beyond, it is important to support beef production through efforts such as beef to school programs. Beef to school programs have the potential to reduce the need for transportation, packaging, and other inputs; increase access to local food; provide farmers an additional market for their beef; enhance community food literacy and connections to local agriculture; keep money circulating in local economies; and possibly utilize cattle that are grass-fed.”

Byker Shanks noted that the Montana Beef to School Coalition – a group formed in 2012 that includes a range of representatives, from school foodservice to meat processors and producers to food and agricultural organizations and agencies – has identified four items that are needed to grow beef to school programs in the state. Those items include identifying current successful models of beef to school efforts, analyzing the capacity and motivations of beef producers and meat processors to fill the demand for local beef, an availability of resources about how to make beef to school efforts economically and nutritionally viable for schools, and implementing strategies to include beef to school programming at schools.

To address these needs, researchers will conduct comprehensive case studies of current beef to school efforts to identify the benefits, challenges, best practices and gaps that exist for beef to school procurement models, Byker Shanks said. Additionally, the team will examine how local beef is utilized in schools and evaluate student acceptance and preference of local versus non-local beef.

Researchers will then use this information to evaluate the larger Montana beef to school market by developing and testing evaluation tools, analyzing characteristics of beef to school supply chain issues, and assessing capacity and needs for slaughter, processing and storage facilities.

“As schools and ranchers in Montana are beginning to work together to bring local beef into schools, the results have been mixed: some procurement models seem successful for all parties involved, while others have faced significant barriers in making beef to school programs viable,” Byker Shanks said “These evaluation results will help create solutions to overcoming barriers to optimizing beef to school efforts.”

The researchers will also develop extensive outreach, educational and promotional materials for multiple groups, including K-12 students and teachers, university students, producers and school foodservice programs. Outreach efforts will also include both in-person trainings and webinars for school foodservice, producers and processors.

“The tools and findings of this project will give Montana’s producers, processors and schools the resources they need to form productive, sustainable procurement relationships,” Byker Shanks said, adding that those resources will be applicable to other stakeholders, as well. “Additionally, this project will foster partnerships among producers, processors and other stakeholders, garnering long-term interest and investment in local and regional beef markets as well as the sustainable production and marketing of other local and regional meat products.”

In addition to Byker Shanks, others involved with the project include Thomas Bass and Joel Schumacher of MSU Extension, Karla Buck of Bear Paw Meats, Katie Halloran of National Center for Appropriate Technology, Jennifer Montague of Kalispell Public Schools Foodservice, Garl Germann of Montana Meats, Jeremy Plummer of Lower Valley Processing, John Polacik of Park High School Foodservice, Aubree Roth of Montana Team Nutrition and members of the Montana Beef to School Coalition.

For more information, contact Byker Shanks at [email protected] or visit the Montana Beef to School Coalition’s Facebook page athttps://www.facebook.com/beef2school or its Twitter account at https://twitter.com/mtbeeftoschool.

USDA Approves Beef Imports from Argentina and Brazil Despite Industry Concern

Image via Flickr.

Image via Flickr.

WASHINGTON – On Monday, June 29, USDA APHIS released their final rules for the Importation of Fresh Beef from Northern Argentina and a Region in Brazil. With this step by the Administration, these areas with a known history of Foot-and-Mouth disease would be allowed to begin the inspection process to import fresh and frozen beef products into the United States. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association stands firmly opposed to this regulation, not on the basis of trade but on the basis of animal health concerns; no trade is worth jeopardizing our herd health.

“FMD is a highly contagious and devastating disease, not just for the cattle industry, but for all cloven-hoofed animals and it can be introduced and spread through the importation of both fresh and frozen products,” said NCBA President and Chugwater, Wyoming, cattleman, Philip Ellis.. In 1929, our industry took profound and personally devastating steps to eradicate this disease and the United States has been FMD free ever since. But the actions of this administration for purely political gain threaten the very viability of our entire industry and threaten hundreds of thousands of American cattle-producing families.”

NCBA has demonstrated through numerous public comments and in person through meetings with staff and members, our concerns regarding the importation of fresh and frozen product from Northern Argentina and these 14 states in Brazil. There is a long history of repeated outbreaks in many of the neighboring South American countries, as well as a history of problems in both Argentina and Brazil with compliance to animal health and food safety regulations. Despite this long history of such an economically devastating animal disease, the Administration did not conduct an objective quantitative risk analysis for this rule, as was performed in 2002 for Uruguay.

The effect of an FMD outbreak in the United States would be devastating to animal agriculture and our entire economy with estimates for total economic losses ranging from $37 billion to $228 billion, depending on the size of an outbreak. Moreover, innumerable losses would occur through the closure of export markets, lost domestic sales, lost opportunities, and a loss of consumer confidence in beef.

USDA APHIS has worked for over 80 years to keep our country free of FMD, now is not the time to give up on that commitment simply to fulfill a political legacy.

Read NCBA’s full release here.


Montana Stockgrowers did submit comments regarding this USDA rule change in 2014.

MSGA supports opening foreign trade relations, utilizing science-based standards to facilitate trade. However, we do not support this proposal for importation of fresh (chilled or frozen), maturated and deboned beef from the specified 14 regions in Brazil into the United States. The risk and potential for catastrophic impact due to the introduction of FMD into U.S. cattle herds is not worth the small amount of trade that would be gained.

With 2.55 million head of cattle, making an economic impact of $1.4 billion annually to the state, the proposed rule will have a large impact, on not only cattle ranchers, but also the well-being of the state of Montana.

Registered Dietitians Sharing Beef Online | Checkoff Chat

Q: Health always seems to have been a battle for beef. What is the checkoff doing with health professionals to fight back?

A: There are a number of health professionals engaged throughout the country. Right here in Montana, there is a Registered Dietitian on staff with the Montana Beef Council and she works to educate locally, while many other states also employ something similar. Nationally, there are many levels of health professional engagement through influencer immersion events, blogger outreach, conferences and more.

This engagement has led to many nutrition professionals sharing their love for beef. And with the strong nutrition content shared on their social platforms, the beef checkoff has been able to highlight many of these to help spread beef’s nutrition message to a broader audience through social channels, like @BeefRD on Twitter. Check out the dedicated beef nutrition website: BeefNutrition.org.

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilRead more about the Beef Checkoff Programs in our Checkoff Chat Series with the Montana Beef Council. Click here to submit your own questions to be answered in future posts.

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. It assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States retain up to 50 cents on the $1 and forward the other 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval. The Montana Beef Council was created in 1954 by cattlemen as a marketing organization for the Montana beef industry and is organized to protect and increase demand for beef and beef products through state, national and international beef promotion, research and education, thereby enhancing profit opportunities for Montana beef producers.

How do Ranchers Provide Consumer Trust and Animal Welfare

animal welfare consumer perceptionsBy Dr. John Paterson, Executive Director of Education, NCBA

The public is not demanding to know where food comes from because it has figured that out.  The public wants to be assured that the people who produce food can be trusted to care for animals and to use on-farm technology responsibly and sustainably. Ninety six percent of consumers say that they support raising cattle for food only if ranchers provide good care for their animals and treat them humanely (Food Safety Survey, Nov. 2008).

Research (Consumer Attitudes to Animal Welfare) reveals that consumers know very little about the agricultural supply chain, and in particular, they are often deliberately ignorant of anything that happens between slaughter and consumption.

Research from the 1980’s showed that consumers wanted beef that had acceptable taste, was convenient to prepare, nutritious, and a variety of cuts could be purchased at a reasonable price.  Today, consumers still want these same traits, but now they also want assurances about the environment, social causes, and animal welfare. The term “story beef” has come into vogue because consumers are asking questions about how livestock producers raised the beef.

For example, did the producer live nearby, did he treat ranch workers fairly, did he practice environmental stewardship, did the ranch operate sustainably, did the producer receive a fair price and did he/she properly care for the animals (Smith, 2008)? Three-fourths of grocery shoppers indicated that they wanted information about the content, origin and how food was grown, processed and manufactured.

Women account for 93% of US food purchases and feel a strong emotional attachment to beef.  The fact that most beef comes from family farms, and that farmers’ care about their animals and the beef they produce resonates with women (John Maday, Drovers J., July, 29, 2010).

The three emotional pillars that female shoppers want from beef include:

  1. the assurance that family ranchers care about their animals and beef quality;
  2. that oversight from USDA and FDA assures that today’s beef is safer than ever and;
  3. the shopper wants control over food-purchasing decisions.

Whom do consumers trust for humane treatment of farm animals?  Janice Swanson from Michigan State University said that consumers trust people like themselves most, followed by advocacy groups, farmers/producers, federal regulatory agencies, grocery stores, restaurants and lastly food companies and processors. Consumers assign to farmers and advocacy groups more responsibility for the humane treatment of farm animals than to any other group.

Of more than 1,000 respondents to a 2007 Oklahoma State University survey, 52% said personal food choices have a large impact on the well-being of farm animals, and 49% said they consider the well-being of farm animals when they make food purchasing decisions (Lusk JL, et al, Consumer Perceptions for Farm Animal Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey, Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 2007.). This study clearly demonstrated (Table 1) the importance placed on various animal husbandry issues.

Table 1 Importance of Animal Welfare Husbandry Factors

Have ranchers responded to consumer concerns? The fundamental values of animal science have traditionally been improved production and efficiency.  Rollin (2010) argues that the science of animal production and husbandry needs to also respect animal nature, minimize pain and distress, control environmental degradation growing out of production systems, exhibit concern for animal production in rural communities and show concern for animal needs and nature.

It is the cattle farmer’s responsibility to ensure that the focus of scientific research and on-farm animal care continues to improve animal well being. It is the farmer’s job to convey the message that “I care for my animals, and I am competent in providing that care” to the American consumer.

The National Cattlemens’ Beef Association has worked diligently to articulate the “Producer Code for Cattle Care,” which are sound production practices. These practices include:

  • To provide adequate food, water and care to protect cattle health and well-being;
  • To provide disease prevention practices to protect herd health;
  • To provide facilities that allow safe and humane movement and/or restraint of livestock;
  • To provide personnel with training to properly handle and care for cattle and;
  • To make timely observations of livestock to ensure basic needs are being met.

Dr. Dave Daley, Professor of Animal Science at California State University-Chico, predicted how livestock producers can lose an argument over an animal welfare issue (How to Lose the Argument on Animal Welfare – Top 10 Reasons, Southwest Farm Press, March 16th 2010).  Among the predictions he made were:

Do not assume that science will give us all the answers; it only gives us some of the answers. Science does not solve ethical questions;

Argue that economics justifies all of our practices. It makes logical sense for us to say “well of course we treat them well or we will not make money”.  If this is only about making money rather than working with animals, we probably should be in another line of work. We need to convince the public that we truly care about animals, not just about dollars;

Not working hard enough to build coalitions that include the consumers;

Finally, have we asked livestock producers about these issues? The overwhelming majority will respond ”animals have the right to be treated humanely and ethically.”

Beef Checkoff and Policy Funding | Checkoff Chat

While the Checkoff may provide education and information about beef, it does not fund policy work

While the Checkoff may provide education and information about beef, it does not fund policy work

Q: Does the checkoff fund policy like COOL and the Dietary Guidelines?

A: The checkoff can only be a resource for information about beef and is prohibited from engaging in discussions about policy. Local, state and national policy membership organizations were formed for this reason and they carry out lobbying on behalf of their membership policies.

No checkoff dollars whatsoever have been used in any comments or actions related to COOL by any checkoff contractors or associated organizations on behalf of the checkoff. As the administrator of the Beef Checkoff, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board cannot take a position on policy matters and cannot lobby. These are matters producers should take up with their individual farming and ranching organizations.

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilRead more about the Beef Checkoff Programs in our Checkoff Chat Series with the Montana Beef Council. Click here to submit your own questions to be answered in future posts.

About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. It assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States retain up to 50 cents on the $1 and forward the other 50 cents to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval. The Montana Beef Council was created in 1954 by cattlemen as a marketing organization for the Montana beef industry and is organized to protect and increase demand for beef and beef products through state, national and international beef promotion, research and education, thereby enhancing profit opportunities for Montana beef producers.

New Series Answers Beef Checkoff Questions | Checkoff Chat

Checkoff Chat Montana Beef CouncilAfter increased attention in news headlines over the past year, we have been receiving several questions about Beef Council programs and how your Checkoff dollars are being used to promote beef to consumers. MyBeefCheckoff.com offers many pages of information to answer these questions about national Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) programs. Locally, the Montana Beef Council (MBC) administers many programs at the state level for Montana consumers.

We recognize ranchers may not always see the full extent of these promotion efforts because most programs are directed at beef consumers and encouraging them to purchase more of our product. Montana Stockgrowers receives Checkoff grant funding for our Environmental Stewardship Award Program, which shares stories of ranches’ environmental stewardship, conservation and sustainability with consumers.

Announcing a new series – Checkoff Chat

To answer your questions, we’ve teamed up with the Montana Beef Council for a Q&A series, Checkoff Chat. Over the next several months, Checkoff Chat will address questions about how your Checkoff dollars are being used to promote beef to consumers as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Click here to see all posts in the series as they are posted, and be sure to share these posts with your friends, neighbors and followers.

Looking for a place to submit your questions about the Beef Checkoff programs? Use our Contact form to send us a message and we’ll pass it along to the Montana Beef Council to be answered in a future post!

The first post in the series is available tomorrow morning. Don’t miss a post in the series! Use the subscription form on the right-hand side of the page to receive emails each time we share a new post.

American Heart Association Certifies Extra Lean Ground Beef As Part of a Heart Healthy Diet

DENVER – The Beef Checkoff Program announced this week that Extra Lean Ground Beef (Ground Beef that is at least 96% lean, 4% fat) is now certified by the American Heart Association® to display its recognized and respected Heart-Check mark. Retailers now have the opportunity to help identify eight different extra lean beef items as options for part of an overall healthy diet to their shoppers using one of the most trusted nutrition icons on food packaging today.

The extra lean beef cuts that meet the American Heart Association’s® requirements for heart-healthy foods as part of an overall healthy dietary pattern, and are certified to display the Heart-Check mark, include:

“Beef has many nutritional benefits and having the American Heart Association certify yet another beef cut empowers consumers to feel good about including beef in their diet, not only for its great taste but for its nutritional value,” said Jo Stanko, a cow-calf operator from Steamboat Springs, Colo., and vice chair of the Checkoff’s nutrition and health subcommittee. “Beef farmers and ranchers like myself share a common goal; to help consumers make shopping decisions to fit their needs and lifestyles by educating them about the health benefits of their food. To this end we will continue to support valid science to show consumers how extra lean beef is part of a healthy diet.”

Before putting its Heart-Check mark on any food, the American Heart Association® evaluates it against nutrition requirements based on sound science regarding healthy dietary recommendations, food categories, specific product ingredients and nutrient values.

Multiple retailers with hundreds of stores across the U.S. currently display the Heart-Check mark on certified beef items in the meat case. Retailers and processors can work with the Beef Checkoff Program to receive a discount on the certification fee for the American Heart Association® Food Certification Program.

Resources such as on-pack labels, posters and recipes are available for retailers to use in store and in shopper communications to promote the certified beef cuts.

To learn more about participating in the American Heart Association® Food Certification Program, please visit www.BeefRetail.org.

###
About the Beef Checkoff
The Beef Checkoff Program (www.MyBeefCheckoff.com) was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. In states with qualified beef councils, states retain up to 50 cents of the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.

The Most Recent Beef Demand Numbers and What They Mean | Infographic

via Chaley Harney, Montana Beef Council

We recently caught up with Glynn Tonsor, Associated Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University and Gary Brester, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University, for an update about beef demand and the role of the checkoff in helping keep demand strong through targeted marketing efforts.

“Sixteen out of the last 17 quarters we’ve had a year-over-year increase, the only exception being the first quarter of this year,” said Tonsor. “And I think a large part of why that’s going on is continued ongoing success of marketing the right products to the right people, and quite frankly, the segment of the public that continues to purchase beef is a slightly different segment than it used to be.”

Tonsor went on to explain that per capita consumption is going down, but we haven’t simply taken away two pounds from every household in the U.S. Tonsor believes the industry is doing better at recognizing that and aligning what they produce with who is able and willing to buy it.

Quarterly All Fresh Retail Beef Demand Index

Quarterly All Fresh Retail Beef Demand Index

“And I have no reason to think that’s going to stop in the fourth quarter, said Tonsor. “The increase in the third quarter basically reflects the facts that we had less beef consumed, specifically we had a 4.6 percent decline, and it’s important to recognize that consumption decline is mainly just because we produced less. That’s just we produced less therefore per capita consumption is down. And what actually occurred was we had 11.3 percent increase in price in the third quarter compared to the third quarter 2013.”

Tonsor said despite fairly wide-spread confusion on the topic, per capita consumption is not demand, as consumption alone says little about the value consumers place on beef offerings.

“Demand increased. Basically nobody made the public pay more for those reduced pounds, but they did. And they not only paid more, they paid more than we expected. And that only occurs, what they are doing voluntarily, if they are seeing more value in there than was anticipated.”

Brester added that when we have less to go around, and if people still want the product, meaning demand has not declined, then price has to increase because it is the mechanism that markets use to allocate scarce goods and resources.

“Yes, some people will consume less and some will consume none at all. But as Tonsor said, this is what has to happen if demand has not declined for other reasons such as lower incomes and recession. Higher prices are not an indication that demand has declined. They are an indication that either people want more of the product, or we do not have enough to meet those desires,” said Brester.

Tonsor went on to explain what kinds of things are allowing demand to grow despite the supply challenges, and how the checkoff is playing a vital role in that process.
“It’s a fair statement that the beef industry has done a lot better job of target-marketing products and basically developing new products for the appropriate consumer. The flat iron steak did not exist 10 years ago. That is a product now that brings more value to that carcass than was the case using the same poundage somewhere else before. The beef checkoff was one of multiple supporters in that effort. The mix of muscle cut versus ground is not the same across the country and we have mixed data on this. But the industry is doing a better job of coordinating what segment of the population wants ground beef, what segment wants steak, and sending it to the appropriate markets.”

Brester concluded that “From a Montana perspective, cow-calf producers must keep in mind that consumers want beef, not calves. Hence, when consumers want beef products, their preferences are manifest in higher prices at every level of the marketing chain. Ultimately, the largest impacts from changes in demand are disproportionately manifest in that segment of the marketing channel that is most fixed in supply, that is, the most difficult to expand—calves. Good management practices are rewarding including those that provide value, such as quality, consistency and better health, to the rest of the marketing system.”

Beef Demand Consumption Infographic

Click to view full-size version

CattleWomen offer personalized BEEF signs

Montana CattleWomen Ranch Beef Sign
Promote the beef industry and the Montana CattleWomen with the purchase of a personalized “BEEF” sign! The 18” x 24” steel signs are designed for outdoor durability and to hang from a gate or fence. These also make great gifts for friends, family, or fellow ranchers!

Print off this order form and mail with payment to MCW.
Signs are $50 each, plus $10 shipping and handling. Allow approximately three weeks for delivery. Please send order form information with payment to Connie Ahlgren, P.O. Box 56 Grass Range, MT 59032. Make payment to Montana CattleWomen. All checks accepted. Signs may be picked up at the Lewistown Farm Bureau office without shipping cost. The Montana CattleWomen receive a portion of the proceeds from all “BEEF” sign orders.

Click image to print this order form and mail with payment to MCW.

Defining Sustainability for Ranching and Beef | 10 Things To Know

Padlock ESAP Sustainable

Sustainability is one of the hottest topics in food and agriculture today. Whether it be used for food products on maintaining a business, many folks disagree on what sustainability looks like. There are as many ways to define sustainability as there are cattle operations in the U.S. Maybe even more.

Essentially, it boils down to managing the three pillars of sustainability – economic, ecological and social – with the long-term in mind. During a panel discussion at this year’s Young Ag Leadership Conference in Bozeman, three individuals from different sectors of agriculture, each defined sustainability in their own terms. While each definition was different, each was based on those three pillars mentioned above. None of them were wrong in their definition. Sustainability truly looks different for each operation.

In an effort to arrive at finding a common definition for sustainability for the beef industry, the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef has met this week in Sao Paulo, Brazil to identify priorities of sustainability in a beef system that is socially responsible, environmentally sound and economically viable.

  • Planet (relevant principles: Natural Resources, Efficiency and Innovation, People and the Community);
  • People (relevant principles: People and the Community and Food);
  • Animals (relevant principle: Animal Health and Welfare, Efficiency and Innovation);
  • Progress (relevant principles: Natural Resources, People and the Community, Animal Health and Welfare, Food, Efficiency and Innovation)

Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef The GRSB hopes their work to define sustainability can provide clarity on a complex issues that affects beef producers, retailers and consumers around the globe. It isn’t the intention of GRSB to create a standard or mandate for sustainable beef practices, but rather to provide a baseline when working with regional roundtables to identify opportunities for improvements and efficiencies on a local level.

What are the indicators of ranch sustainability in an area where cattle are grazing rangelands? The Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable lists 64 indicators of sustainability, We will cover 10 of them here. Do any of these apply to your operation? Maybe you can identify opportunities for improvement in areas of sustainability?

  1. Change in soil area erosion and ground cover
  2. Quality and flow of ground and surface water
  3. Condition of riparian and wetland areas
  4. Presence and availability of wildlife habitat
  5. Number of livestock on land relative to carrying capacity
  6. Return on investment for forage and livestock enterprises
  7. Suitability of animal and forage species for environment
  8. Social status and employment opportunities for workers
  9. Contributions and involvement with surrounding communities
  10. Longevity and effort to manage and maintain systems

Many farms and ranches across the country exhibit qualities of sustainability. The longevity of multi-generation operations that have been around for a century or more should be evidence of that. As long as it involves the three core principles mentioned above, sustainability looks different on each operation, but that difference shouldn’t mean one is good and the other is bad. They’re different, and that diversity should be celebrated.

The Environmental Stewardship Award Program recognizes ranches each year who are doing good work in the areas of sustainability. Be sure to read more about their stories of sustainability. Also, be sure to visit sustainable.rangelands.org to learn more from the cooperative effort by the Society for Range Management, University of Wyoming, and several other organizations. To read more about indicators of successful ranching, check out the proceedings from the Range Beef Cow Symposium XIX.

What questions do you have about sustainability for beef or ranching? Leave a comment below or email [email protected]. This is part of a month-long series of 10 Things to Know about Cattle. To read other posts in the series, click the image below.

Click this image to view all posts in the 30-day blogging series, 10 Things to Know About Cattle

Click this image to view all posts in the 30-day blogging series, 10 Things to Know About Cattle