Photos of recipes from the new book Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Photos of recipes from the cookbook Tender Grassfed Meat
The Elephant, the Blind Men, and Food Science
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Partial data is misleading.
The United States established national nutrition standards in the early days of World War II. The reason for establishing these standards was simple, yet of great concern. Approximately 15% of potential military recruits were physically unfit for service.
The government correctly determined that the problem was malnutrition. Thus, the national nutrition standards were established, based on scientific research. These standards have been revised several times over the years, based on more scientific research.
American institutions, the medical profession, the nutrition profession, and society in general tried to follow these standards, and many people did.
The result? Today, in 2013, 75% of potential military recruits were physically unfit for service.
In other words, the percentage of recruits unfit for service has risen from 15% to 75%!
Since the purpose was to improve the health of military recruits, the national nutrition standards are a miserable failure, by any measure.
How could this happen?
The Dangers of Partial Information
The problem with food science is that it is based on partial information. There is much about food and how it interacts with the body that has not yet been discovered. Partial knowledge can be very misleading.
The problem was perfectly described in a very old tale from India, one that goes back thousands of years. There are several versions, but this one will do.
Six wise men, who had much knowledge, had never seen an elephant. All of them were blind. They went to examine an elephant to decide what it was. Since they were blind, they had to rely on touch.
One wise man fell against the side of the elephant, and stated that the elephant was like a wall.
The second wise man grasped the tusk of the elephant, and declared the elephant was like a spear.
The third wise man felt the squirming trunk of the elephant, and declared that the elephant was like a snake.
The fourth wise man felt one of the legs of the elephant, and stated the elephant was like a tree.
The fifth wise man touched the ear of the elephant, and declared that the elephant was like a fan.
The sixth wise man touched the tail of the elephant, and declared that the elephant was like a rope.
All of their conclusions were reasonable, based on the data they had, and all of them were wrong.
Before one can determine the truth of something, one must be able to perceive the whole of it.
Food science has never had more than partial information on food, nutrition, and digestion, and has come up with conclusions that are often wrong, because the data is partial.
An Example of How Partial Knowledge Leads to Serious Errors
Back in the mid-twentieth century, food scientists reached a consensus that saturated fat was bad for health, and unsaturated fat was good. Since most saturated fat came from animal sources, and most unsaturated fat came from vegetable sources, the scientists claimed that vegetable oils should be used instead of animal fats. This recommendation was adopted by the authorities and institutions, and most people adopted it as well.
But these scientists did not know of the existence of omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids. We now know that these acids must be in a particular ratio, one that occurs naturally in the fat of wild fish and grassfed animals. There is much scientific evidence that an oversupply of omega-6 fatty acids is very bad for the body, causing inflammation, and contributing to inflammatory diseases like heart disease, cancer, and many others. More omega-3 fatty acids are found in saturated fat, while unsaturated fat is made up mainly of omega-6 fatty acids. Most vegetable oils have far too many omega-6 fatty acids, and are out of balance.
The scientists who recommended vegetable oil over animal fats did not even know that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids existed, let alone how crucial the balance was. This is very much like the blind wise men and the elephant.
The harm that was created by this partial knowledge is immense, as there is no telling how many millions of people got serious inflammatory illnesses because they followed this bad research. We do know that the occurrence of these diseases has increased enormously over time.
For example, 3000 people died from heart attacks in the U.S. in 1930. But, in 2004, 876,000 people died from heart attacks in the U.S.
The Wisdom of the Ancestors—the Research of Dr. Price
I am not condemning valid, unbiased, well conducted scientific research. It can be invaluable. There is no doubt, though, at this time, scientific knowledge of food and its interaction with the body is only partial, and cannot be relied on in all areas.
But we have an alternative. Our ancestors (especially those peoples who were healthy) had cuisines and food combinations based on thousands of years of experience, passed down over the centuries from father to son, from mother to daughter. I try to eat according to these traditions, and to eat unmodified foods that were similar to what they ate. I have had great success, and so have most of the people I know who follow this path. Dr. Weston A. Price showed the way, with his study of traditional peoples who were free from tooth decay and modern disease, and we can follow his path.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
How You Can Help Save a Heritage Breed, the Guinea Hog
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Heritage breed Guinea Hogs.
Once, all of our meat came from heritage breeds, who were raised naturally and had many fine nutritional, farming, and taste qualities. Some of these breeds still exist, yet are threatened with extinction. The agricultural farming industry is not interested in heritage breeds, as they do not care about nutrition, or taste, or raising animals naturally.
All Big Ag wants are animals who they can raise as cheaply and quickly as possible, to increase profits. They have developed breeds for the feedlot, who gain weight quickly, eat whatever is placed before them, and can survive CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) conditions long enough to reach a high weight before slaughter.
I have eaten meat from heritage breeds, and it is so far superior to the factory variety that I cannot begin to describe it. It feels nourishing, and it tastes so much better.
Heritage breeds are well worth preserving. Cathy and Jon Payne, who own a small farm in Georgia, are trying to save an old American breed, the Guinea Hog. They are trying to raise the money to do so with an Indiegogo campaign. This is a very worthy cause. I had a chance to ask Cathy some questions about her farm, the Guinea Hog, and her fund raising campaign.
1. Tell us a bit about your farm, and what your goals are.
Broad River Pastures is a sustainable, heritage, pasture-based, 11 acre family farm in Northeast Georgia. It was founded 3 years ago when I retired from teaching after 33 years. My husband, Jon, and I left suburban Atlanta with no prior farming experience and a general dream of a healthier lifestyle. We’ve had to learn each operation from scratch, and have in many ways determined what worked best for us and our animals by trial, error, research, and observation.
At Broad River Pastures, we strive to be a homestead model that benefits not only our family, but others who want to be more self-sufficient and sustainable. Many of the projects we do on the farm can be adopted on much smaller or much larger scale. We use permaculture design, promote heritage animal breeds, promote biodiversity, and apply eco-agricultural and biodynamic methods to grow nutrient-dense food.
Our goals include:
- Leave our land in better shape than we found it.
- Educate the wider community about the importance of real food, raised humanely and sustainably, for vibrant health.
- Train young people interested in sustainable agriculture.
- Promote and breed heritage livestock for their original purposes and provide high quality breeding stock for other farmers with similar goals.
- Grow nutrient-dense food for our family and the local community.
- Supplement our retirement income.
- Leave the farm as a legacy to someone interested in carrying on the work we started.
2. Please explain the difference between heritage pigs and modern pigs.
I’m going to start with the difference between heritage livestock in general and then move to heritage pigs. Heritage livestock breeds are those that were traditionally raised by farmers before the advent of massive-scale industrial agriculture. They were raised to thrive in particular regions of the country and for particular farming styles. Many of the heritage breeds were adapted for pasture-based models. Modern breeds are developed for a factory farm model.
For example, most of the chicken raised for meat in the United States is a Cornish Cross hybrid bird. It is developed to keep its face in the feed bowl and eat all day, rarely moving, in confinement. I know several farmers who attempted to raise these birds on pasture. The result was a high mortality percentage and birds who stayed in one place with their faces in the feed bowl. They had no desire to walk more than a few feet from the feed or forage for bugs. Heritage poultry, on the other hand, are well suited for a pasture-based free-range setting and will happily seek out insects and young plants from dawn till dusk over a wide area.
Now on to pigs. Heritage pigs have traditionally been raised in dirt pens, in woods, or on pasture ranges in an outdoor, natural setting. They were processed in the fall and eaten “Nose to tail.†Some pigs were raised particularly for their lard, which provided cooking oil to the family as well as a main component of soap for washing. Modern pigs, those that produce “the other white meat,†produces a pale, lean meat that grows quickly in confinement on feed containing a plethora of antibiotics to keep them growing faster and to protect them from injuries in close confinement. Their tails are docked to keep frustrated pigs from chewing on each other, and the eyeteeth of the males are cut to minimize biting.
Jo Robinson, in Pasture Perfect, reported that confinement hog production requires an investment of $5 million and creates 40 to 45 new jobs. However, each factory puts 126 independent hog farmers out of business. In addition, health conditions for workers and for neighbors of the hog farms are abysmal due to high levels of dust, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and other gases. She also reported that pork from pigs raised on pasture have more vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids than pork from pigs in confinement. The taste is incomparable, with pasture raised pork having a much richer flavor and appealing mouth feel. Compared to dry, flavorless production pork, the pork from pastured heritage pigs tends to be more flavorful and juicy, like the pork chops and roasts of long ago. The meat of a heritage hog is red and richly marbled.
Like the poultry mentioned earlier, the “improved†commercial breeds are not suitable for free-range models and would not be as likely to thrive.
3. Why is it important to preserve heritage breeds?
Every year, there is less biodiversity in our food system, as large corporations seek to become more profitable. In fact, only 15 mammal and poultry species produce over 90% of livestock production. Monocultures in either livestock or produce are vulnerable to disease. This puts us in danger of situations where a single outbreak could shut down the country’s entire operation of beef, pork, or poultry production. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture organization, at least 1,500 of the world’s 6,000 livestock breeds are in imminent danger of extinction. We are losing an average of 1 to 6 livestock breeds each month. A full 50% of the breeds that existed in Europe in 1990 are already extinct. This lack of biodiversity can have dire consequences if we have an oil crisis that impacts commercial production. The good news is that in the United States, there has been a resurgence of pasture-based farms and a concentrated effort to conserve American breeds through the American Livestock Breed Conservancy (ALBC). Because the heritage breeds have been such an excellent fit on sustainable farms and because of conservation efforts, no American breed has gone extinct since 1985. That is very encouraging, but it does require that heritage farmers like me continue to register and improve and breed their stock. To do that, they must have customers to keep them in business. Your readers can support them by purchasing some of their food from small farmers and specifically seek out the heritage breeds.
4. Tell us a bit about Guinea Hogs, and why they are a good choice for a small farm.
Guinea Hogs are a small, black, hairy lard hog. Lard hogs are the ones you see in very old art work depicting English pigs. They are very round. The longer pigs are developed to have a lot of “belly†which is used to produce bacon. Other pigs in between, are produced more for hams and pork chops. Of course, every pig produces the same cuts, but we are talking about proportion here.
Thomas Jefferson owned Guinea Hogs, and they were very common on small Southern farms until the late 1800s. They are ideally suited for the South, where their dark pigment and hairy coat protects them from sunburn. They are extremely gentle and friendly hogs that were often tethered outside the family home to glean acorns and windfall fruit, small rodents, and snakes. Shelter needs are minimal, and they easily farrow (give birth) without assistance. They are able to produce meat and lard with very little grain inputs, making them more affordable to keep. We are currently raising heritage pigs without soy, but they do require a lot of grain in addition to pasture and windfall fruit to help them gain weight. With the Guinea Hogs, we hope to raise them with pasture, hay, root crops, and small amounts of barley and milo.
5. Please explain the goals of your fundraiser, and how you will use the funds you raise.
We’ve invested our savings and retirement income into the farm to install fencing, train and obtain working dogs, and develop infrastructure to allow us to do pastured production. Now we need some help to maintain our momentum. We have set a goal to raise $6,000 to provide needed items for our heritage breeds.
This includes about $2,100 toward travel, cost of livestock, fencing, and housing needed to start our Guinea Hog herd. In the event that we do not meet our goal, it is likely that all of our funds will go to the Guinea Hog project.
We need another $650 to install an automatic watering system for our heritage rabbits, to purchase replacement cages, and to improve drainage from rainwater to prevent anaerobic bacteria from growing in the barn.
We need $3,250 to modify our sheep housing, build additional sheep housing, and build a shed to keep our hay dry and free from mold and mildew that can harm livestock.
If we raise the full $6,000 goal, we can accomplish these tasks. However, if we exceed our goal we can do even more:
- $1,000 will provide a feed storage shed close to the rabbit barn.
- $2,000 will provide additional fencing and water lines to expand our pig production into a wooded area currently unfenced.
- $3,000 will build a permanent shade area for livestock during handling such as shearing or hoof inspections.
- $5,000 will purchase a used farm truck for hauling livestock, hay, manure, etc.
If contributors are very supportive and generous, we will be able to do so much more with the items listed here.
6. Please explain how this Indiegogo fundraiser works, and how people can contribute to your cause.
Indiegogo is easy to use! It is an International platform to raise money, and you can find it at www.indiegogo.com. My campaign is listed under the entrepreneurial: food category. You can find it at this link: Help Save Heritage Livestock Breeds with Broad River Pastures, or by typing in the city of Elberton or the title Help Save Heritage Livestock with Broad River Pastures. Anyone with a valid bank account can use Indiegogo to either raise money or contribute to other people’s passions. Since our farm is an LLC and not a non-profit, your contributions are not tax deductible. However, each level of contribution is rewarded with a perk, if desired, that gives you a nice remembrance of your participation.
The amount we actually have to use with our livestock will be reduced by costs of shipping, the costs of our perks, and the commission paid to Indiegogo. Since we are using the flexible campaign plan, we get to keep donations even if we do not meet our goal. However, the commission is 9% if we do not meet our goal and only 4% if we meet or exceed our goal. So it is very important to meet or exceed our goal to remain sustainable. We have some fantastic perks in our campaign, including organic cotton tote bags and t-shirts, Guinea Hog hat pins, and copies of Stanley Fishman’s Tender Grassfed Barbecue. We will be releasing new perks throughout the campaign so be sure to check back and see what might be new and different.
For anyone without a valid bank account or who cannot afford the minimum $5 contribution, you can still help us out by using social media to tell your friends anywhere in the world about what we are doing. Share this blog post, link to our Indiegogo site, shout us out to your friends on Twitter and Facebook, etc. We appreciate you getting the word out!
Thank you, Cathy, and I wish you complete success in this worthy venture.
If you wish to contribute to Jon and Cathy’s campaign to save the Guinea Hog, you can do so via this link:
Help Save Heritage Livestock Breeds with Broad River Pastures
Nourish the Terrain with Real Food
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
These pastured eggs with their deep orange yolks are a wonderful example of real food.
A debate between two nineteenth century French researchers ended up creating the core belief of the modern medical system.
Nearly everyone has heard of Louis Pasteur, but very few have heard of Claude Bernard.
Modern medicine is built on the germ theory proposed by Pasteur. Yet there is mounting evidence that Bernard, who had a different theory, was correct. In fact, Pasteur was reported to have blurted out the words “Bernard is right!” shortly before he died. The medical profession and mainstream scientific establishment claim that Pasteur never said this.
Why is the controversy still important? Because the modern medical system, built on the Pasteur theory of germs being the cause of most disease, fails many people. Some of those people who found no help from conventional medicine turned to the Bernard theory without even knowing it, and restored their health.
With one important addition—eating real food.
I am one of those people, and I know many others.
The Two Theories
Most people are familiar with the germ theory of disease advocated by Pasteur. This theory claims that most illness is caused by germs, tiny organisms like bacteria and viruses. Since these organisms are the cause of illness, the way to cure illness is to kill the germs. This can aggressively be done through medication, sanitation, radiation, and other methods outside the natural defenses of the body.
In fact, the symptoms of disease are attacked by outside interventions such as surgery, drugs, and radiation—all aimed at killing the organisms that are blamed for the disease. This approach, which is the cornerstone of modern medicine, often does great harm to the patient, and often fails to cure them.
It can work, but it is common for the symptoms to return at a later date.
Bernard believed that the most important part of defeating disease was what he called “the terrain.”
The terrain is the body of the patient, and the natural functions of that body. Bernard taught that the body is full of bacteria, which are benign and helpful if the body is working properly. But if the body becomes weakened, or injured, or malnourished, some of these bacteria change and become dangerous, causing disease.
To Pasteur, killing the pathogens through outside intervention was the way to heal. To Bernard, strengthening the “terrain,” the body, enabled the body to heal itself, creating a condition where the bad bacteria became benign and helpful again.
What We Know Now
We know that killing outside germs through basic hygiene helps prevent disease. Yet we also know that the body needs beneficial bacteria to live, and killing too many of these bacteria has bad effects on the body, and they are often replaced with harmful organisms.
We know that antibiotics and other aggressive medical interventions can relieve symptoms, but they usually fail to treat the cause of the symptoms, which often return at a later date.
Yet we also know that many people who have no medical intervention recover from every kind of illness, and often do not see the symptoms return.
My Experience, and the Role of Food
I have had many illnesses over most of my life. I have had a lot of medical treatment for various conditions. At first, the treatment relieved the symptoms. But my body became weaker from the prescription drugs and other treatments. After some time, the symptoms always returned, and I would need more treatment. Eventually, I reached a point where the medical interventions did not work.
What saved me was an unwitting turn toward Bernard’s theory. I strengthened my body by switching to real food, and avoiding toxins. The real food and grassfed meat gave my body the nutrition it needed to function properly. As my terrain became stronger and stronger, I became healthier and healthier. I have not needed any medical intervention in over ten years.
I do practice hygiene, which gives my body less to fight off, and I believe there is a proper place for medical intervention when it is truly needed. But the best path I have found for myself is to nourish my terrain by avoiding toxins, including dangerous bacteria, and eating real food only. That way, the natural functions of my body keep it healthy. Many of my friends in the real food movement have had a similar experience.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
Grassfed Hamburgers Are Not Boring!
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Hamburger with Kebab Flavors—ready to cook.
I used to hate hamburger, and ground beef in all its forms. Factory beef makes terrible hamburgers, in my opinion. But that all changed when I switched to grassfed ground beef, and found that I loved it.
As one of my favorite grassfed ranchers once said, “These are hamburger times, not steak times.” Many people think hamburger is boring and uninteresting. Yet many cultures celebrate traditional ground meat dishes, and often prefer them to more expensive cuts.
The beauty of ground grassfed meat is that you can do so much with it. You can add all kinds of ingredients, and the variety is limited only by your imagination and research ability. I have found that traditional ground meat flavor combinations can make the plain hamburger into a delicious, nutritious, delight.
Traditional Ground Meat Delights
I first learned of the value that other cultures give ground meat mixtures when I went to an ethnic restaurant with a friend who wanted to introduce me to his native cuisine. There were many grilled items, and I asked him what he liked best. I thought it might be the lamb kebabs, or the marinated chicken kebabs. Instead, he enthusiastically recommended the ground meat kebabs, which he said were the best thing on the menu. I took his recommendation, and was astonished by how flavorful and good they were.
Many cultures have their own unique traditional ways of preparing ground grassfed meat. The meat is almost always mixed with other ingredients. In Germany, the meat could be mixed with eggs, breadcrumbs, cream, and a little nutmeg. In Poland, a ground onion might be mixed into the meat, with some bread that was soaked in milk, squeezed dry, and incorporated into the burger.
Armenians could mix finely chopped parsley and onions into the meat, along with various spices. In India, curry spices and other ingredients could be mixed into the meat. The combinations are endless.
Turning Grassfed Hamburger into a Delicious Masterpiece
The key to having a flavorful variety in burgers is to mix other ingredients into the meat.
I have tried traditional flavor combinations with grassfed ground beef, grassfed ground bison, grassfed ground lamb, and pastured ground pork. I have used olive oil, all kinds of minced vegetables, eggs, egg yolks, toasted sesame oil, milk, cream, fish sauce, and a huge variety of spices from all over the world. By using traditional flavor combinations as a guide, I have come up with a variety of wonderful burgers that are very distinct in their taste and flavors. The ground meat recipes I have published in Tender Grassfed Barbecue include:
- Great Plains Cherry Bison Burger
- Balkan Burger
- Transylvanian Garlic Burger
- Cinnamon Burger
- Curry Burger, and
- Cajun Burger, to name a few. They are all different, yet delicious.
My upcoming cookbook will include many new recipes for grassfed ground meat, including this one that I have already shared on the Internet:
Ground grassfed meat need never be boring, and can be delicious in so many ways!
This post is part of Fat Tuesday blog carnival.
Science Verifies Health Benefits of Traditional Food Combinations
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Traditional Chinese seasoning combination of garlic, ginger, and green onions.
In researching my upcoming book on traditional cooking, I was fascinated to see how many cultures ate particular food combinations. Certain foods and spices would always be eaten together. I saw this in the traditional cuisines of Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, Latin America, almost everywhere. Why were these foods always combined in a particular cuisine?
I did a bit of research and was delighted to find that science has verified the health benefits of some of these traditional food combinations.
Our ancestors were remarkably well informed about the foods they ate, even without science and research. They had their traditions, which represented the collected knowledge of their ancestors, passed down from father to son, from mother to daughter, over the centuries. Not all of these traditions have been verified, but some of them have been.
Some Verified Benefits of Traditional Food Combinations
Throughout traditional Europe, bread was always eaten with butter. In areas were butter was hard to get, bread was always eaten with some other fat. In many areas it was pork lard or pork fat, often spread on the bread while still raw. Bread was also fried in bacon grease. Olive oil was sometimes used, especially in Southern Italy. But some kind of fat, usually a lot of fat, was always spread on the bread.
Potatoes were also always eaten with fat, including butter, cheese, cream, lard, bacon, chicken fat, duck fat, beef tallow, lamb tallow, and other animal fats.
Bread and potatoes are very high in carbohydrates, and can cause glycemic effects that can harm the body.
Science has verified that fat slows the absorption of the sugar from carbohydrates. This can slow down and often prevent the harmful “sugar rush” effect of eating carbs and sugars. Thus the traditions of always eating these carb-heavy foods with fat had a definite health benefit.
Another example is the Chinese seasoning combination of garlic, ginger, and green onions, which is used in a huge number of traditional Chinese dishes. All of these vegetables have proven antibacterial and blood purifying effects, and ginger is known to help digestion. There was an old Chinese belief that ginger drove “the devils” out of the food. The numerous health benefits of garlic have been proven by science, as have the antibacterial effects of green onions. The combination of all three has not been tested, but I suspect that they are even more effective in combination.
Turmeric has proven antibacterial and anti-inflammatory qualities, and recent research has shown that it may help the natural processes of the body avoid Alzheimer’s disease. Even more recent research has shown that the helpful effect of turmeric is substantially increased when it is consumed with black pepper, which has a substance that works to increase the beneficial effects of curcumin (the active ingredient in turmeric).
Turmeric is a very common spice in India, being a component of almost every curry spice combination. Turmeric is nearly always combined with black pepper in these dishes.
India may have the lowest rate of Alzheimer’s disease in the developed world.
These are just a few of the traditional food combinations whose beneficial qualities have been verified by science. There are many others. There are other food combinations that have not been tested, but I suspect that they are very beneficial as well.
Hippocrates, the greatest of ancient physicians, said it best, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.â€
Words of wisdom.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
Great Soil Means Great Nutrition, and Great Taste
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Here are the cherry preserves I am writing about. They tasted even better than they look.
There are times when I think I know a lot about food. Then I have a new experience and realize that I have so much to learn. This post is about the important lesson I was taught by a jar of cherry preserves.
The Cherry Preserves
I was in a store that had imported food from many lands. My eyes were drawn to a jar of cherry preserves. I do not eat fruit preserves, because they are always made with added sugar or some other kind of sweetener. Yet I picked the bottle up and looked at it. The manufacturer had used an incredibly beautiful color for the glass in which the cherries were packed, a magnificent cherry red that no doubt made the preserves look much better in the jar than out.
Sure enough, the few ingredients included sugar, and citric acid. I do not eat foods with added sugar, or citric acid. But I held on to the bottle.
The word organic did not appear on the bottle. I do not eat foods that are not organic, unless I know they have been grown in a way that is the equivalent of organic. There was no information about how the cherries were raised. But I held onto the bottle.
I noticed that the preserves were made in Ukraine. My grandfather was born in Ukraine. I remembered that he would never eat fruit. I asked him why, once. He said that after eating fruit in Ukraine, he could not stand the dead, lifeless, tasteless fruit in the U.S. That conversation took place over fifty years ago, when fruit was much better than it is now.
I bought the preserves. When I got home, I put some preserves on some heavily buttered spelt bread. I tasted them. Wonderful is too weak a word to describe the glorious taste. I immediately felt better, clearer. The preserves were not sweet, and they tasted like cherries. A deep cherry flavor I had never experienced before. The skins had been left on the cherries, there was hardly any liquid in the bottle, and the effect on my body was wonderful. I never tasted fresh fruit that was half as good. Not even the best organic fruit I could find. And as good as the preserves were, I was satisfied after eating two tablespoons. I looked at the bottle. Now that some cherries had been taken out, it was clear glass, with no coloring. The magnificent color was from the cherries alone.
Despite the added sugar, despite the citric acid, the natural goodness of these cherries dominated the experience.
I could not understand this. Then I remembered what my grandfather said, and about the soil.
The Soil
Ukraine just may have the best soil in the world. The best soil is actually black there, very thick. Incredibly rich in nutrients and minerals. It has been known for hundreds of years for the wonderful crops it produces, the incredible vegetables and fruits. No doubt much of the soil was damaged or lost under the brutal rule of the Soviet Union, which polluted much of the land with the poisons of heavy industry. But obviously much of the sacred black soil of Ukraine remains, and it was that soil that made those cherries so good.
For hundreds of years, people wanted to know where all their food came from, and paid particular attention to how good the soil or grasses were in a particular region. Food raised in a region famous for good soil was highly prized, and even the goodness of the soil of a particular farm was known in the community and valued. The desire for this important knowledge has largely faded away, as marketing and corrupt media and government convinced us that all food was the same. An apple is an apple. A cherry is a cherry. No matter where it comes from. One of the biggest lies about food that has ever been told.
The soil is crucial, our ancestors knew this, and that bottle of cherry preserves proved it once again.
I believe there was a day when most preserves and traditional processed foods were this good, a day that has long passed.
We have lost so much.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
The Butchers Tale, or Is Real Food Worth It?
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Cuts of grass fed meat.
I ran into one of my favorite butchers yesterday. He was trained the old way, when butchering was an art. He knows a lot about all kinds of meat. He can cut steaks and roasts that are so beautiful that they are like a fine painting.
He had just finished reading Tender Grassfed Barbecue. He said that he agreed with everything I wrote about nutrition. He could see it in the meat, over the many years he was a butcher. He had wondered for a long time why grain-finished meat looked so different, and was so full of blocky streaks of fat, rather than the fine marbling he looked for in a superior piece of meat. He said that he believed that most conventional foods were not that nutritious. And then he let out a shocker.
“I am still going to eat the conventional food. I know the grassfed meat and real food is much better for me, but it is too much trouble to change. It would just be too much work. And the better food is too expensive.”
I have heard words like these from so many people. It is too hard, too much trouble, and too expensive, to make the switch to real food.
Having reached the point where we eat nothing but real food and grassfed meat, I can tell you this:
- It is very hard to make the switch.
- It is a lot of trouble.
- It is more expensive.
And, many people will think you are nuts.
Is it worth it?
Absolutely. The blessings of good health and mental clarity that I have received from changing my diet are worth all the trouble, expense, and even being made fun of or being thought of as a nut. It has been like being reborn.
Health Is Much Better than Convenience
Many years ago, when I was twenty, my Dad asked me if I ever felt good when I woke up in the morning, full of energy, eager for the challenges and pleasures of the day. I honestly told him that I never did. I did not even know what he was talking about. When I woke up, I was discouraged, annoyed, short of breath, and in pain.
I thought I was eating a good diet, because the FDA inspected all food, and would not allow any food that was not good to be sold. I ate only conventional foods sold by big supermarkets, because they were cheaper, and “just as good.”
I thought I was well nourished, because I was big and looked powerful. And because I followed my doctor’s advice on what to eat.
I thought I was getting the best medical care in the world.
So why was I so sick, exhausted, and miserable?
I am convinced I was suffering from severe malnutrition, like most Americans. And I did not even know it.
Because it is easy to find, buy, and use conventional food, I had convenience. But I did not have health.
Making the Change
Eventually, things deteriorated to the point where the medical profession had no help to give me, and told me so. Rather than give up and die as predicted, I got furious. I got determined. I used my skills as a research attorney to find another way.
What I found was the website of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and the priceless information on their website enabled me not only to save my life, but become healthy for the very first time as an adult.
I knew I had to switch to real food. It was difficult. I had to drop most of the food items I used to buy. I thought I loved many of them, though in reality, I was addicted. I had to learn a whole new way of cooking. And we spent much more money on food than we were used to. And I had to deal with the fact that some of the foods I needed could not be bought, only made. Making homemade broth, especially skimming it, and straining it, seemed so hard. Learning how to cook grassfed meat was hard, especially when I kept ruining it and there was nothing I could find that taught me how to cook it. I wrote Tender Grassfed Meat to make it easier for others to learn how to cook this wonderful meat. Making my own fermented foods was hard, at first. And I really missed the factory foods I was addicted to.
But once I learned how to make broth, cook grassfed meat, and make fermented foods, it became familiar and easy. Still time consuming, but easy.
I learned how to find and buy real food, which became fun. And the extra expense became easier to accept, as we adjusted our spending priorities, realizing that nothing we can buy is as important as the good food that keeps us healthy. We also learned how to find sales and bargains, which really helped.
The addiction to the factory foods began to fade, as we ate much better real food alternatives.
Many of our family members, friends, and acquaintances thought we were too picky. Some got offended when I would not eat the conventional food they liked.
The convincing argument, the one that convinced me that real food was worth all the time, expense, and trouble, is this—I became much healthier. When properly nourished, the natural functions of my body kept me healthy, without any drugs. My mind became much sharper, and the occasional short term memory problems disappeared. The quality of my life became so much better, in every way.
Now I wake up each morning eager for the challenges and pleasures of the day, full of energy, and so happy to be here. I finally understand what my Dad was talking about, so many years ago.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
The Traditional American Right to Eat Good Meat
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
photo credit: Gerry Dincher
We live in a time when the eating of all meat, any meat, is under attack. We are constantly told we must eat less meat, especially less red meat, or should eat no meat at all. We are given many reasons, which are false when it comes to grassfed meat. The attacks on meat never distinguish between the pure, grassfed meat of eaten by our ancestors, and the very different factory meat that eaten by most people.
Yet restrictions on eating meat are not new, and go back thousands of years. In most human societies after the advent of agriculture, meat eating and hunting were heavily restricted. Only the ruling classes and some of their servants were able to get enough. Before the founding of the United States of America, this was still true for most of the world, including Europe.
While most people think of well known American freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, most never think of a freedom that is just as traditional and possibly even more important—the right to eat enough good meat.
The Old Restrictions on Meat, and the American Difference
In Europe, most people ate very little meat. The policies of the governments prohibited most people from hunting, as all game was considered to belong to the crown or the nobility. People who killed a rabbit to feed their hungry family were guilty of the crime of “poaching,” and were often executed for that “crime.” While peasants and farmers would often raise animals, they would keep them mainly for milk. The surplus animals would usually be sold so the peasants could pay the high rents and taxes to the nobles and other landowners. In fact, in Ireland, the pigs raised by families were known as “the gentleman who pays the rent.”
The result was that most Europeans had to survive on a diet consisting mainly of grains, vegetables, seasonal fruits, with some dairy products and some fish. The result was a population so stunted and malnourished that a man of 5 feet 4 inches was considered tall, even into the nineteenth century.
Some of these people immigrated to the British, French, and Spanish colonies in North and South America. There were very few nobles and rich people there, especially in the British colonies. But there was a huge supply of wild game, and no one to restrict hunting. The early settlers learned a lot about hunting from the Native Americans, who were expert hunters, and much taller, stronger, and healthier than the first European immigrants. Anyone who wanted to hunt could, and meat immediately became a huge part of the colonial diet. In addition to wild game, pigs and cattle were imported, and quickly thrived on the almost unlimited grazing of the new lands, multiplying in huge numbers. Keeping animals for meat was cheap and easy, and these immigrants were able to eat their fill of good, grassfed and pastured meat for the first time.
The Benefits of Good Meat.
The research of Dr. Weston A. Price established the fact that people need animal foods, especially animal fats, to thrive and be healthy, and grassfed and pastured meat are perfect animal foods. The benefit of these foods was shown by the history of the United States.
The population of the English colonies in North America exploded, as people thrived on the meat-heavy diet. A number of people immigrated to these colonies just because they heard that even poor people could afford meat there. In fact, the diaries of immigrants, even in the early twentieth century, reveal that one of the most important motivations for moving to the Americas was the ability to afford and get good meat.
Not only did people live longer, but they were taller, stronger, healthier, and more independent. British visitors to the thirteen colonies were astonished at the height, strength, and health of the Americans, who often towered a foot or more above their English relatives. The genetics were the same, the difference was in the diet, and the Americans ate huge amounts of good, natural meat. A diet that only the wealthy and privileged could enjoy in England.
Good meat and fat nourish the brain, and these tall, strong people were very independent minded, would not just do what they were told, and took pride in thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. “Yankee ingenuity” became a byword in Europe. Eventually, these well nourished people founded the United States of America, defeated the greatest military power on earth in a bloody, yet completely successful revolution, and founded one of the best systems of government the world had yet seen. A system that had many flaws, yet allowed more freedom and personal responsibility than any system existing in Europe at the time.
These ideas were exported to Europe, and eventually resulted in the freeing of most Europeans, giving them a degree of freedom that they never had before.
The right to eat good meat has been a basic American freedom, and it is a right that everyone on earth deserves to have.
Switching to grassfed meat, using the grazing practices pioneered by Allan Savory, would greatly increase the supply of good meat and increase the amount of grasslands and water throughout the world.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
Study Does Not Prove that Grassfed Red Meat Increases Diabetes Risk
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
Healthy grassfed steak.
Every few weeks or so, someone publishes a study “proving” that eating red meat does something horrible to us. I consider all these studies to be invalid, especially when it comes to eating grassfed meat.
Because none of them, not even one of them, ever considers the immense difference between eating grassfed meat, the natural food of nature, and factory meat, which comes from animals eating an unnatural diet. Factory animals have been made to grow at an unnaturally fast rate by growth hormones, antibiotics, steroids, and other unnatural methods.
All studies on the effect of eating red meat which do not differentiate between grassfed meat and factory meat are invalid, as to grassfed meat. The latest study purporting to show that red meat is bad for us has many flaws, and proves nothing.
Grassfed Meat Is Very Different than Factory Meat
Grassfed Meat is perhaps the oldest food of humankind, and is ideal for our bodies. This is the meat you get from herbivorous animals eating nothing but their natural food, green living grass, though they may need to eat hay, which is dried grass, in the winter.
Factory meat is the meat you get from animals who start out on grass, but are finished with a stay in the feedlot, a stay that usually lasts at least 120 days. While in the feedlot, the animals eat no grass and do not graze. They are fed grains like GMO corn and GMO soy. Neither one of these substances are the natural feed of cattle. Other items are often fed to these cattle, including candy bars, restaurant plate waste, bakery waste, the sludge left over from making alcohol and ethanol, and many other substances which are not the natural food of cattle. In addition to the unnatural feed, factory cattle are usually given growth hormones, antibiotics, steroids, and other chemicals which cause them to grow much faster than normal.
The difference in diet creates a great difference in the meat. Grassfed meat is rich in omega-3 fatty acids and CLA, but these nutrients are reduced by each day spent in the feedlot. See Health Benefits of Grass-fed Products.
The meat of grassfed animals is much less watery than factory meat, and should be cooked differently, as described in my cookbook, Tender Grassfed Meat.
Well over 98% of the meat sold in this country is factory meat.
Because of these differences, no study that does not differentiate between grassfed meat and factory meat means anything, when it comes to the effect of grassfed meat.
This Study Does Not Prove that Eating More Red Meat Increases the Risk of Diabetes
First of all, the author of the study admits that it does not prove that eating more red meat increases the risk of diabetes! (Eating Red Meat Tied to Higher Diabetes Risk)
Second, the study has many flaws:
- It only cover doctors and nurses, not the general public.
- It asks the participants to remember how much red meat they ate over several four year periods. This is very unreliable. Do you remember each time you ate red meat over the last four years and what the size of the serving was? Of course not.
- The difference found by this questionable data was insignificant, and means nothing.
- 2 in 300 of the participants who reported increasing their consumption of red meat got Type 2 Diabetes.
- 1 in 300 of the participants who reported not increasing their consumption of red meat got Type2 Diabetes.
- The risk of getting Type 2 Diabetes for those who reported increasing red meat consumption was 2/3rds of one percent.
- The risk of getting Type 2 Diabetes for those who did not report increasing red meat consumption was 1/3 of one percent.
- The difference was an increase in risk of 1/3 of one percent. This is the real, absolute risk.
- By the rules of statistics, this difference is so far within the margin of error that it means nothing.
- The study did not differentiate between grassfed and factory meat.
- So contrary to the news headlines, this study does not prove that increasing red meat consumption increases the risk of Type 2 Diabetes. Especially when it comes to grassfed meat.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
We Need to Know More About Our Meat, Not Less
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat and Tender Grassfed Barbecue
The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued regulations in 2009 that required retailers to disclose the country of origin on the labels of meat products. This gave U.S. consumers some real information about where their meat comes from.
It also upset Canada and Mexico. They do not want U.S. meat products labeled with the country of origin. In fact, they filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, which ruled against the U.S. And where was the U.S. meat packing industry? Right on the side of Canada and Mexico, of course. The big meat packing industry does not want us to know where our meat comes from either.
The USDA has proposed new regulations that would provide us with even more information on the labels of meat products. This is a very good thing. But Canada and Mexico are threatening to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products if the new system is used, or the old system is continued.
Why do these nations not want us to know if a product contains their meat? Are they not proud of the meat they produce and sell?
Apparently not.
I contend that we have an absolute right to know what country our meat comes from, and much, much more about it. It is all about freedom. Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. meat packing industry have no right to deny us this information.
My Experience with Canadian Meat
In 1983, I visited Canada as a tourist. I still remember walking into Safeway as a consumer, and seeing some absolutely beautiful meat. A beautiful prime rib roast caught my eye. It was two ribs, and much smaller than a comparable American roast. I cooked it simply. I was astonished at how good it was, far better than American beef. Tender, with incredible flavor. If meat from Canada had been available at my local store, I would have bought nothing else after this wonderful experience. That is the kind of meat Canada used to produce.
Many years later, beef labeled as being from Canada appeared in local stores, and I eagerly bought some. It did not look any different from U.S. beef, but I was excited to get it. I was very disappointed. The meat tasted the same as U.S. factory meat. Canada had adopted the U.S. factory meat model. A great tradition of raising wonderful beef was thrown away for short-term corporate profit. That was a shame. There is no way I will ever eat factory meat again, no matter where it comes from.
While there are some wonderful grassfed Canadian ranchers, their meat is not exported to the U.S., as far as I know.
The Glory of Mexican Beef
I have not had meat that I know comes from Mexico, but I know the history of the Mexican expertise with cattle. Mexican vaqueros were experts in raising great cattle. They founded the huge California cattle industry, one of the most successful in the world when California was part of Spain, and later, Mexico. When the king of Hawaii wanted experts to teach his people how to raise and manage cattle, he hired three vaqueros from Mexico to teach his people, which they did. They shared much knowledge with the Americans who settled the west. I know butchers raised in Mexico who have great knowledge about fine beef, and how to raise it and recognize it. I fear that the meat exported to the U.S. from Mexico follows the U.S. Big Ag factory model, rather than the traditions of Mexico, which is another shame.
The Icelandic Experience
Iceland, rather than trying to hide the origin of its lamb, proudly proclaims it. Many Americans are willing to pay very high prices for lamb from Iceland, which is grassfed, raised in a traditional manner, and has wonderful taste and tenderness.
Canada and Mexico Should Learn from Iceland
Rather than trying to hide the origin of meat from U.S. consumers, I contend that Canada and Mexico should raise and export better meat—grassfed meat. Meat raised on the great natural forage of each nation. Meat they can be proud of. In fact, if they adopt and promote the methods of Allan Savory they will preserve and improve their grasslands and water courses, while raising excellent beef. They should give up the American factory model, which produces meat through chemicals, hormones, and unnatural feeds. I challenge them to return to the tradition of their ancestors, and produce real meat that is so good that Americans will flock to buy it. If Canada and Mexico produce meat of that quality, the label will become an advertisement of quality, rather than a handicap.
In the meantime, kindly stop interfering with our right to know where our meat comes from!
And I want to thank the United States Department of Agriculture for actually protecting our right to know what country our food comes from, and requiring even more labeling information.
This post is part of Fat Tuesday and Real Food Wednesday blog carnivals.
« Previous Page — Next Page »