A Greener World's Sustainable Farming Magazine — Summer 2025

VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 2

SUMMER 2025 | $9

GRASS IS GREENER

DEBUNKING THE DOUBTERS

PLUS

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

PLANNING MAKES PERFECT

SLAUGHTER PLANTS NEEDED

UNCERTAIN TIMES

ROSÉ REVOLUTION

First, an important

update regarding

our Climate-Smart

Commodities project.

In April, we received

notice from the USDA

that the project (like

many other federal

grants) would be

terminated. The stated reason was to put

“farmers first.” Yet we expect farmers in the

project to lose tens of thousands of dollars each

in financial and non-financial incentives, services,

and support due to this project not moving

forward as contractually agreed with USDA—not

to mention the business and operational impacts

of the last quarter’s uncertainty.

The farmers in the project put in many hours

of work, and this unfortunate outcome is not a

reflection of the incredible work you’ve done.

The project has demonstrated the importance

and viability of climate-smart and regenerative

practices, and that is a step in the right direction.

We are exploring ways to continue to support

those practices and certification opportunities.

Stay tuned for more information.

In March, the Washington Post ran an article

about a study claiming that grassfed beef has no

climate benefit. Lead author Gidon Eschel posits

that 100% grassfed beef is more carbon-intensive

than feedlot beef and intensively raised poultry,

pork and plant proteins. As you can imagine, we

disagree! On pages 16-18, we rebut this flawed

study with the help of grassfed beef pioneer and

author, Ridge Shinn. Please share widely.

Farmers are no strangers to uncertainty—

but with new tariffs, funding freezes, and rising

input costs, the current pressures are significant.

On pages 8-11, we explore these challenges and

offer practical resources to support business

planning and decision-making in difficult times.

As we head into the warmest season in the

Northern Hemisphere, extreme weather—driven

by climate change—is top of mind. While the

future remains uncertain, advance preparation

is key. We’ve gathered useful planning resources

—get in touch at info@agreenerworld.org if you

need help accessing them.

As highlighted in our Spring issue, AGW

is still offering grants of up to $500 to support

logo use in the U.S. and Canada, see details below.

We're also thrilled to share new research on page

4 demonstrating the nutritional benefits of

grassfed beef, as well as Ridge Shinn's principled

dismantling of a recent scientific paper claiming

that grassfed beef is as carbon intensive as

industrial beef. (See page 16.) Both offer muchneeded

evidence to support high-welfare,

pasture-based ruminant systems.

Emily Moose

Executive Director

A Greener World

Sustainable Farming

Summer 2025

Volume 10

Issue 2

Cover price $9

Editor: Peter Mundy

info@agreenerworld.org

A Greener World

PO Box 115

Terrebonne

OR 97760

1-800-373-8806

The views expressed by

contributors to Sustainable

Farming are not necessarily

those of A Greener World.

Every effort is made to check

the factual accuracy of statements

made in the magazine,

but no guarantees are expressed

or implied. Advertisements do

not constitute endorsement by

A Greener World. Material may

not be reproduced without

prior written permission.

Sign up to our email list

agreenerworld.org

Maison

Mirabeau is

first Certified

Regenerative

by AGW

vineyard in

Provence

Maison Mirabeau in the Côtes de Provence region

has become the first vineyard in Provence, France,

to achieve Certified Regenerative by AGW—an

international third-party certification recognizing

environmental and social sustainability.

The Certified Regenerative by AGW program

is a plan-based assurance that verifies climatepositive

farming practices and encourages continuous

improvement. The certification considers

soil health, biodiversity, water management, air

quality, animal welfare, and social responsibility,

with ongoing audits and expert support.

Founded by Stephen and Jeany Cronk in 2010,

Maison Mirabeau has gained a reputation for its

nature-positive approach to winemaking. Their

estate, Domaine Mirabeau, follows practices such

as cover cropping, compost use, minimal soil

disturbance, and biodiversity corridors—safeguarding

the region’s natural water balance and

reducing its carbon footprint. This holistic approach

also avoids chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

“Our commitment to regenerative agriculture

is fundamental to our philosophy,” says Stephen

Cronk, Co-Founder of Maison Mirabeau. “We

believe that a truly great wine should reflect the

health of the land. A Greener World’s certification

gives us the framework and accountability to keep

improving, while showcasing the unique terroir of

Provence.”

To celebrate this milestone, the vineyard has

launched a new rosé, ‘One Day’, made exclusively

from Certified Regenerative by AGW grapes. The

wine is available at Whole Foods Market UK and

featured on Virgin Atlantic’s Upper Class flights

this summer.

“This is a wine with real integrity,” adds Wayne

Copp, AGW’s Executive Director International.

“When consumers see the Certified Regenerative

by AGW label, they know they’re choosing a

product with genuine social and environmental

impact. We’re proud to partner with Maison

Mirabeau in building a regenerative food and

drinks system.”

Visit maisonmirabeau.com and

agreenerworld.org/regenerative-viticulture

IN THE

NEWS …

LABEL FUNDING CALL

AGW is offering limited-time grants—up to

$500 USD per operation—for certified producers

to add AGW logos to their product packaging.

Funding is available to U.S. and Canadian livestock

operations that are certified and in good standing.

Expenses such as label printing or purchasing

AGW's branded egg cartons are not covered.

Funds are limited and awarded on a first-come,

first-served basis. Contact Callie Casteel at

callie@agreenerworld.org to apply or learn more.

HURRICANE PREP

Hurricane season is upon us, beginning June 1

and running through November 30. Farmers and

ranchers are encouraged to prepare early and

review emergency planning and recovery resources.

AGW-certified producers can find helpful tools

on our website, including emergency planning

templates in the species-specific health plans.

If your farm is impacted or you need help

accessing preparedness information, please don’t

hesitate to get in touch: info@agreenerworld.org

GRANT WINNERS

The Food Animal Concerns Trust, with support

from the American Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals, awarded 72 Fund-a-Farmer

grants this year to help farms across the U.S.

transition to more humane, sustainable systems.

Grantees like Caer Luna Farm (NY), Staples

Farm (OK), and Woolly Cheese Co. (WA) received

funding assistance to improve pasture access, soil

health, and infrastructure to help meet AGW’s

high-welfare standards.

Visit foodanimalconcernstrust.org

TOP 50 CHIPS

Massachusetts-based tortilla chip company

El Nacho has been named one of RangeMe’s Top

50 Food & Beverage Brands—selected from over

250,000 brands every 90 days based on buyer

engagement and retail interest. Made with

Certified Regenerative by AGW corn, El Nacho’s

chips sustainably celebrates the spirit of lucha

libre. The brand chose AGW certification to

support its commitment to regenerative farming

and a better food future.

Visit elnachochips.com

2 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • SUMMER 2025

SUMMER 2025 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 3

IN THE NEWS …

WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Landmark

study links

farming

practices

to nutrient

density of

beef

A new landmark study confirms what many U.S.

farmers and food advocates have long believed:

the way cattle are raised plays a major role in the

nutritional quality of the beef we eat.

Led by the Bionutrient Institute, in collaboration

with Utah State University and agri-tech company

Edacious, the multi-year research effort analyzed

beef samples from a wide range of production

systems—alongside data on soil, forage, and farm

management. The findings show that nutrient

density in beef isn’t fixed. Instead, it’s shaped

by variables like pasture diversity, genetics, and

farming practices.

“This research reinforces what we and our many

farmers and ranchers have advocated for years:

the way we farm matters—not just for the environment

and animal welfare, but for the nutritional

quality of the food on our plates,” said Emily

Moose, Executive Director of AGW. “Beef raised

on diverse, pasture-based systems consistently

shows higher levels of omega-3s, calcium, and

antioxidants. It’s more proof that truly sustainable

farming benefits everyone—farmers, animals,

consumers, and the planet.”

The study is helping lay the groundwork

for a science-based framework to define and

measure nutrient density—giving producers tools

to demonstrate the value of their practices and

helping consumers make informed choices.

Explore the data at eat.edacious.com

MIKE SUAREZ/GORILLA BYTES

GM CARTE BLANCHE?

A new proposal from the European Food Safety

Authority (EFSA) on the regulation of genetically

modified (GM) animals has sparked serious

concern among campaigners.

In its response to EFSA’s draft scientific

opinion on "new developments in biotechnology,"

GeneWatch UK warns that the guidance could

weaken oversight of gene-edited animals—undermining

both the precautionary principle and legal

obligations under international law.

The new EFSA proposal claims no new risks

are posed by emerging technologies like CRISPR

and synthetic biology, compared to conventional

breeding. However, GeneWatch points out this

downplays known and unknown harms, including

unintended genetic effects and the suffering

caused by cloning, which is often required to

reproduce GM animals.

“EFSA increasingly appears to be delivering

its opinions to pander to political/commercial

demands to minimize and downplay the profound

differences between conventional breeding and

genetic engineering technologies,” said a Gene-

Watch spokesperson. “The end goal seems to

be to create a false, but politically convenient,

pretense that genetically engineered living

organisms are equivalent to naturally occurring

and conventionally bred organisms and that they

pose no greater risks.”

The group argues that EFSA’s selective interpretation

of current guidance overlooks scientific

uncertainty and established animal welfare risks

—potentially opening the door to unchecked

developments in animal biotechnology.

WELFARE

TRAINING

Join us in Raleigh,

NC, July 29–Aug 1,

for two, two-day

certification

progams in animal

and poultry welfare.

Led by Dr. Andrew

Grist (University

of Bristol), these

research-based,

internationally

respected training

sessions offer

practical, sciencebacked

strategies

to improve welfare,

product quality, and

profitability. Ideal

for slaughterhouse

supervisors, live

production

managers, and

welfare officers.

Space is limited—

register early!

Contact julie@

agreenerworld.org

for details of a

limited $100/day

travel stipend and

hotel discount.

WILDPIXEL

B CORP RECOGNITION

AGW SIGNS UP TO THE PORTO PROTOCOL

Animal Welfare Approved by AGW is now formally

recognized under the revised B Corp Certification

standards. The new framework allows certified

businesses to use AGW certification to meet

specific requirements related to monitoring animal

welfare in their operations and supply chains.

“We are pleased that Animal Welfare Approved

by AGW is now listed as part of B Lab’s interoperability

framework to help companies meet

the updated requirements for B Corp Certification,”

said Katie Amos, Director of Communications

and Outreach.

"The alignment further reinforces the value of

AGW certification as part of wider business efforts

to support sustainable, ethical, and transparent

food production."

"This recognition marks an important step

forward in aligning meaningful welfare assurances

with broader environmental and social impact

goals. AGW-certified food businesses and farms

working with B Corp-aligned partners may find this

supports compliance and streamlines reporting."

AGW is proud to join The Porto Protocol,

launched following the 2018 Climate Change

Leadership summit in Porto. The Protocol is

founded on the principle that sharing knowledge

and practical solutions accelerates climate action.

“By signing up, AGW joins a collaborative

network of over 250 producers, researchers

and businesses spanning five continents and

20 countries, all committed to sharing practical

solutions for a more resilient future for the

industry,” says Wayne Copp, AGW’s Executive

Director International. “This aligns with our own

mission to support transparent, independently

verified farming and growing systems that deliver

measurable benefits for the environment, animals,

and people."

“Through this partnership, we look forward to

contributing to the Protocol’s growing library of

real-world case studies and solutions—particularly

those linked to regenerative viticulture and

sustainable food systems.”

Visit portoprotocol.com



Opinion

WHEN SYSTEMS FAIL

To keep up to date with our latest educational

blog posts and get the latest news delivered

direct to your inbox, simply scan this QR code

Avian flu

highlights

industrial

poultry’s

risks—and

high-welfare

resilience,

says Tim

Holmes

With millions of birds culled due to avian flu

outbreaks across North America this year, the

vulnerability of industrial poultry farming has been

laid bare once again. But among Certified Animal

Welfare Approved (AWA) by AGW farms—certified

for their high-welfare, pasture-based practices—

the story is very different.

To date, AGW has recorded only one Certified

AWA poultry farm that had to depopulate due to

avian influenza—and that was over four years ago.

Despite being near outbreak zones in recent years,

none of the certified farms have tested positive or

been forced to cull birds. This isn’t luck: it’s a result

of deliberate, science-based practices rooted in

smaller-scale, pasture-based systems.

clean clothing and equipment, and monitoring

state and federal outbreak alerts. The majority

of AWA farmers remain highly vigilant, especially

during periods of heightened risk.

The disproportionate impact of avian flu on

industrial farms is no coincidence. The increasing

consolidation of poultry operations since the

1970s is a key driver. Today’s industrial broiler

farms house 40,000 to 50,000 birds per barn.

Many sites run a dozen or more barns. One recent

outbreak at a single layer facility in North Carolina

affected over 3 million birds. With hatcheries, feed

mills, and slaughterhouses also concentrated in

the same regions, disease can spread rapidly and

impact entire supply chains.

or visit

agreenerworld.org/get-involved/email-sign-up

MICROSTOCKHUB/ISTOCK

Tim Holmes is AGW’s

Compliance Director

Disproportionate impact

In contrast to industrial operations that crowd

tens of thousands of birds into confinement,

AWA farms offer space, sunlight, and the ability

for animals to express natural behaviors—factors

that bolster immune function and reduce

stress. Birds raised in high-welfare systems with

access to pasture and sunlight are healthier and

more resilient. Pathogen load is lower, foraging

supplements their diet, and natural behaviors

support immune function.

That said, we caution against complacency.

Avian flu remains an active biosecurity threat and

all farms—regardless of system—must maintain

rigorous disease prevention protocols. These

include limiting exposure to wildlife, maintaining

Delocalized production

Diversified poultry systems may offer part of the

solution. Just as the COVID-19 pandemic revealed

the fragility of centralized meat processing, avian

flu highlights the importance of decentralizing

food production. Smaller farms with localized

infrastructure can continue to operate even when

one part of the system fails, improving resilience

across the board.

Ultimately, AGW sees the solution not just in

different farming practices, but in a reimagined

food system—one built on integrity, transparency,

and a commitment to the health of animals,

people, and the planet. As the crisis continues,

we must ask: Is the real threat the virus—

or the system that helps it spread?

• The largest solely grazing focused publication in North America

• Driven by the goal of turning farms and ranches into profitable

ventures with regenerative soil health.

• Edited by Joel Salatin

Request your free sample issue today!

1-800-748-9808 • P.O. Box 2300 • Ridgeland, MS 39158-2300

WWW.STOCKMANGRASSFARMER.COM



Artificial insemination allows easy movement

of desirable genetics in a container that doesn’t

eat, poop, or experience suffering when transport

times are excessive. That’s great news, so long as

you are willing to take on all the work done by a

healthy sire!

In this article we’ll explore basic artificial

insemination processes, challenges and benefits,

and keys to success.

Collection and storage

Semen is collected from ruminants through an

artificial vagina, electro-ejaculation, or internal

massage through the rectal wall. Collection from

pigs and poultry is generally by massage. As

you can imagine, rectal massage and electrical

stimulation come with obvious comfort concerns.

The artificial vagina is considered safest for sires

and their human handlers.

Collected semen is usually pooled and diluted

with an extender, with glycerol added to protect

it from freezing. Artificial color may be added to

distinguish breeds.

Chicken and turkey semen begins to lose

fertilizing ability if stored for over an hour, while

fresh bull semen can be successfully stored for

a few days. (Poultry semen can be frozen, but

reduced fertility limits its utility, so artificial

insemination is not commonly used except for

special breeding projects and the turkey industry.)

Frozen ruminant semen, however, can be stored

indefinitely if it is maintained constantly (and I

mean constantly!) at temperatures below -112°F.

With liquid nitrogen storage (-320°F), viability can

be maintained for years without any decrease in

fertility.

Application

For all methods of artificial insemination, the

objective is to deposit sperm in the cervix (the

passage between the vagina and uterus) or directly

into the uterus. In a typical approach, a speculum

is placed in the vagina, and the inseminating

tube is passed through the speculum to deposit

semen in the cervix. Successful vaginal artificial

insemination requires precise know-how and

dexterity to achieve correct placement, as well as

basic technique and hygiene practices to prevent

injury or infection. In addition, animals must be

conditioned to restraint—artificial insemination is

not appropriate for range herds that are handled

infrequently.

Surgical approaches, in which semen is

deposited directly into the uterus, can require

less handling. However, they also come with

surgery’s full suite of medical risks, pain, and

wound management.

Risks and management concerns prevent

widespread use of surgical artificial insemination

across livestock operations, but it is sometimes

employed to increase artificial insemination

conception rates in small ruminants.

Pros and cons

Studs excel at storing semen for maximum viability,

identifying each female’s optimal breeding window,

and placing sperm at the proper location at the

ideal time. For a good return on an investment in

artificial insemination, you—as well as the bull—

have to succeed in doing all of these things.

Pros

Rapid herd-level improvement in traits like

disease resistance, milk production, foot health,

meat quality, fertility, and many more.

Access to geographically inaccessible sires.

More information about a sire’s previous

outcomes (rapid increase in number of offspring

means more data is available sooner).

Reduces or eliminates the cost and challenges

of maintaining breeding males.

Eliminates quarantine and biosecurity concerns

associated with moving animals.

Virtually eliminates injury to breeding stock

(non-surgical methods only).

Simplifies recordkeeping.

Reduces inbreeding.

Minimizes risk of venereal disease.

Sires who are past their natural breeding

lifespan (aged, injured, or dead).

Fine-tunes timing to align production

with labor, facilities, and markets.

BUDIMIR JEVTIC/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

FERTILITY

BY DESIGN

Jen Gravley explores the pros and cons

of artificial insemination



DOUG HOUGHTON/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

GUIDO KOPPES/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

ANDIA/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

BUDIMIR JEVTIC/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

Successful vaginal artificial insemination requires precise know-how

Pig semen collection is typically done by massage

It’s best to find someone experienced at inseminating sheep and goats

Liquid nitrogen keeps semen fertile for years

Cons

Risk of amplifying undesirable genetics,

including unwanted traits or genetic disease.

Infectious disease spread by poor hygiene.

Injury due to poor technique.

Initial investment.

Cost (ongoing).

Lost opportunity cost if not as successful as

natural service.

May not be preferred by producers or customers

who aim to closely model natural systems.

Additional challenges for small ruminants

Small available pool of sires.

Lower success rates.

Individual variation in estrus cycle timing (does).

Remember: the genetic improvements to your

herd are only as good as the whole genome of

your selected sires. Whether desirable, undesirable,

or masked, all traits are amplified when one sire is

used for many offspring. Choose the wrong sires

and you could be left with less adaptive diversity

in your herd than you started with. While artificial

insemination offers the potential to fine-tune

production and improve financial performance, it

also carries the risk of poor outcomes at high cost.

Intact males

Many herds will experience weaker estrus cycles

if male breeding animals are entirely absent.

Although freedom from managing intact males

is considered a benefit of artificial insemination,

exposure to males can actually improve

artificial insemination conception rates. Ram

and boar exposure, in particular, can improve

artificial insemination results for sheep and pigs,

respectively.

Intact males can also handle “cleanup” by

breeding females whose artificial insemination

did not result in pregnancy. With sheep, a cleanup

ram is generally considered necessary, as ovine

artificial insemination success rates are often

around 50%, compared to 70% for cattle, and

80% or more for pigs.

“Choose

the wrong

sires and

you could

be left

with less

adaptive

diversity in

your herd

than you

started

with.”

HEAT DETECTION

To determine which animals are in standing

heat, observe for 20 to 30 minutes, twice per

day. Nearly half of ruminants will show their

strongest heat signs between 12 a.m. and

6 a.m. Could this unusually aggressive and

vocal behavior of livestock in the middle of

the night be the origin of “the witching hour”?

If you don’t plan to be up stirring the cauldron

at this time, make your observations first thing

in the morning and again later in the evening.

Heat detection aids can be helpful, but tailhead

or mounting markers cannot substitute for

observation. Watch for these signs—especially

the first four:

Standing when other animals try to mount

Duration of standing heat:

Cattle: 14-16 hours

Sheep: 24-40 hours

Goats: 24-72 hours

Bison: 36-72 hours

Pigs: 48-72 hours

Excitement, agitation, increased

vocalization: May be restless, nervous,

aggressive, more active, noisy

Reduced feed intake and milk production

Vulvar discharge

Evidence other animals have tried to mount,

such as muddy rump or roughened tail head

Attempts to mount other animals

Tail raised or flicking; increased pelvic

movements

Increased licking or smelling of herd mates

Increased frequency of urination

Vulvar swelling

For those who think your laying hens are just

asking for scritches when you approach them

in the pasture: that squatting behavior is the

signal for breeding receptivity in poultry.

When to breed

Your observations and experience should guide

artificial insemination timing. These general

guidelines can serve as a starting point.

Cattle: 12 hours after standing heat ends.

Sheep: 12–18 hours after the onset of

standing heat.

Goats: 24 hours before the end of that

individual’s typical heat period. Ideally, breed

again once or twice more at 12-hour intervals.

If a doe is still in heat 24 hours after breeding,

she is probably not pregnant.

Pigs: For gilts, 12 and again 24 hours after

standing heat begins. For sows, 24 and again

48 hours after standing heat begins.

Insemination skill

Following estrus detection, semen placement is the

most likely factor influencing artificial insemination

outcomes.

Although the process sounds simple, successful

artificial insemination breeding outcomes require

considerable skill. With artificial insemination

technique, as with heat detection, small ruminants

present unique challenges.

For example, the ewe’s cervix is long and winds

about, with rather inflexible walls, all of which make

proper semen deposition especially difficult. Worse,

using a speculum and thawed-frozen semen in a

maiden ewe is unlikely to result in lambs, but very

likely to result in injury.

For all species, professional technicians are

significantly more successful at insemination

compared to individuals who are inexperienced

in this task. When deciding whether to hire an AI

technician, consider their fees in relation to the true

cost of a reduced conception rate. For sheep and

goats in particular, it’s important to find someone

experienced at inseminating these species.

Jennifer Gravley dvm is a veterinarian and educator

with a special interest in the intersection of food

animal medicine and public health

“Successful

AI breeding

outcomes

require

significant

skills …

It’s worth

the cost to

work with

a skilled

technician.”

SHOULD YOU CONSIDER

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION?

The following questions may help you decide.

Strategy

What will you gain from utilizing AI?

How will you obtain the desired benefits?

Will you use AI on the whole flock, or select

certain dams and well-matched sires? Will you

keep, or continue to bring in, breeding males?

Animal health

Are your animals ready to take full advantage

of your investment in reproductive assistance?

In particular, does your nutrition program

support reproductive success?

Semen source and storage

Have you identified specific traits you wish

to boost in your herd—and found a source?

animal compatible with your breeding females?

Can you maintain proper storage conditions

to preserve semen quality, or will someone

else provide storage?

Estrus detection

Will you be present to observe the necessary

time periods, at the right times of day?

Do you consistently, correctly predict estrus

cycles and identify standing heat?

Insemination

Have you identified an AI professional who

understands the species you raise?

Once estrus is detected, will you be able to

schedule and complete insemination by that

individual during the breeding window?

Success depends on a variety of factors,

and many of those are linked to on-farm

observation and management. Actual results

will vary. If you choose to pursue artificial

insemination, it’s worth the time and effort

to become adept at heat detection—and worth

the cost to work with a skilled technician.



FARMING IN

UNCERTAIN TIMES

Plan and plan—and then plan some more, advises Emily Moose

Most farmers already know how to weather

storms—both literal and figurative. But 2025

brings a perfect convergence of challenges:

rising input costs, trade instability, farm labor

disruptions due to federal immigration policies,

USDA funding freezes, extreme weather events,

and ongoing disease threats like avian flu. Many

are now operating without a cushion, facing tough

choices about what to produce, when to sell, and

how to stay afloat.

How do you decide what to do when faced with

unexpected challenges? In a time like this, the

most powerful tool you have is a plan—one that

is flexible, honest, and grounded in your unique

situation. Making difficult decisions for the future

takes discipline—but it is also a necessity.

Start with what you know

Your decisions will depend largely on your farm’s

production model, sales cycle, and access to

markets. A producer selling at farmers’ markets

has very different risks to one raising turkeys for

the holiday season or supplying wholesale to

restaurants or distributors. Knowing your own

timing—when cash comes in, when expenses hit,

and your capacity—can help identify where you

have room to shift and where you don’t.

For example, if you’re fattening animals, it may

not be possible to delay processing or marketing

without significant cost. But if you manage

ruminants and have access to early pasture, you

TAKE STOCK

Here are a few

questions to help

guide your next

steps:

How long can

you keep animals or

products on-farm

if delays occur?

Are you in touch

with processors,

distributors, and

feed suppliers

about potential

disruptions?

What would you

do if fuel or labor

became unavailable

for a short period?

What are the

financial limits you

cannot cross—and

what’s negotiable?

may be able to stretch your timeline and reduce

feed purchases. The key is knowing how long you

can hold animals or product before they shift from

asset to liability.

Rethink marketing

In recent years, many farmers have diversified sales

channels into CSA programs, on-farm pickup, and

online stores. If you haven’t explored these, now’s

a good time to consider what’s possible. Even if

direct-to-consumer sales aren’t appropriate,

partnering with nearby farms, local grocers, or

small-scale distributors can help build resilience.

It’s also worth checking in with existing

customers. How is business? Are they expecting

to buy the same volumes? In uncertain times,

open communication can help avoid surprises.

Inputs, labor, and supply chain stress

One of the biggest stressors this year is the rising

and unpredictable cost of farm inputs. Fertilizer,

feed, and fuel prices remain elevated, and delivery

delays are more common due to global supply

chain shifts and increased tariffs. Labor is equally

uncertain—especially for farms relying on seasonal

or migrant workers.

Now is the time to take inventory. Do you have

enough feed or fertilizer to carry you through

critical periods? Could local suppliers be more

reliable than national chains, even if slightly

more expensive? If your labor situation changes

suddenly, what’s your backup plan?

Staying in regular contact with suppliers—

veterinarians, processors, feed dealers—will give

you a clearer picture of what’s coming and how

to prepare. Even a short-term supply disruption

could have long-lasting effects on your operation.

Look closely at your financial position

Understanding your cash flow, debt, and risk

tolerance is more critical than ever. Looking at

your financial position is about being honest with

yourself. How much financial flexibility do you

have? Could you carry the farm for a few months

without significant sales? What expenses can you

delay or reduce without compromising animal

welfare or soil health?

What federal or state support programs are

available? With some funding streams on pause or

facing reductions, don’t count on promised aid until

it’s confirmed in your bank account. If you’ve had a

relationship with a lender or USDA office, now is the

time to check in—not when you’re already in crisis.

Plan for risks

Extreme weather is now a reality. Flash floods,

wildfires, droughts—extreme weather can upend

even the best-laid plans. Similarly, disease outbreaks

like avian flu are forcing some producers to

cull flocks or navigate biosecurity protocols with

little warning. Can your infrastructure withstand

increasingly intense weather? Are your barns or

FIND SUPPORT

The Farmer Hotline

(1-800-FARM-

AID) connects

U.S. farmers

with support for

financial stress,

legal issues, and

crisis assistance.

farmaid.org

The Do More

Ag helpline

(1-866-FARMS01)

offers peer support

resources tailored

to rural and remote

areas in Canada.

domore.ag

The RABI helpline

(0800 188444)

offers confidential

financial and

practical support

to farming people

across England

and Wales.

rabi.org.uk

shelters up to the task? Can you adapt existing

drainage, fencing, and water access to a changing

climate? Are your insurance policies adequate and

current? Don’t wait until the emergency arrives to

find out.

Making decisions

Sometimes things are simply beyond our control

and the best solution is also the toughest to take.

In the extreme, that might be to exit farming—or to

shut down a marketing channel and try again once

things have stabilized. Your plan might include

contingency slaughter dates, a list of secondary

feed sources, or a reserve fund set aside for labor

or transport needs.

Timing and where you are in life will make a big

difference. If you have good markets and are wellfunded,

some challenges may represent a bump

in the road. But if you were already struggling

and are resource-scarce it may be time to review

your options. These are not easy decisions—but

when you plan ahead, even imperfectly, you’re in

a stronger position than if you’re forced to react

without time or information.

Above all, you’re not alone. Networks,

neighbors, and organizations are here to help. In a

season with few guarantees, your best strategy is

still the same: make a plan, stay flexible, and act

on what you know. We’re here if you need support.

Emily Moose is AGW's Executive Director

ALEX RODRIGO BRONDANI/ISTOCK



SLAUGHTER

PLANTS NEEDED

Opening

the doors

of your

slaughter

plant for an

AWA review

is critical

to your

success,

says Charlie

Hester

Some slaughter

plant owners

wrongly assume

AGW is some

kind of ‘animal

rights’ group

Applying to A Greener World’s Animal Welfare

Approved (AWA) program is normally a straightforward

decision for farmers and ranchers. After

reading the AWA standards, most are excited

about the opportunity to prove to customers

their commitment to high-welfare management.

However, slaughter plant owners can have the

opposite reaction. From experience, we know

some plant owners wrongly assume AWA is some

kind of ‘animal rights’ group who want to record

the killing of lovable animals for their next social

media campaign. In reality, nothing could be

further from the truth. However, this misconception

often becomes a barrier for farmers and ranchers

interested in using the AWA logo.

Get your plant onboard

If you are thinking of joining AWA it is absolutely

essential to get your slaughter plant involved as

early as possible—ideally before you even apply.

AWA is a birth-to-slaughter certification and

getting your chosen slaughter plant to allow an

AGW review is critical to your farm certification

and your ability to market meat using the AWA

logo. Since you already have a positive relationship

with your plant, we highly recommend the initial

request to participate come directly from

you, rather than AGW.

The plant owner’s perspective

Unlike our farm certification, AWA's third-party

slaughter review is completely free to participating

slaughter plants. As a result, some farmers assume

their plant will throw open their doors, welcoming

the opportunityto set them apart from the

competition.

But most slaughter plants already undergo

intense inspection, often involving substantial

paperwork. Many already feel they are over

regulated—and with some justification. As well

as the usual challenges encountered by any

business, plants are faced with Food Safety

Audits, Hazardous Critical Control Point (HACCP)

documentation, state environmental and employment

laws, daily operational and meat inspection

by the USDA or state programs, not to mention

public and media scrutiny. As a result, many

owners won’t necessarily want another inspection

or recognize the added benefit of being an AWAreviewed

plant—especially if they already have

misconceptions about the AWA program. So how

do you persuade or encourage your slaughter plant

to agree to an AGW review?

What’s in it for me? Most plant owners rightly

want to know what’s in it for them—other than

earning or keeping your business! First, the

AGW review process can save plants money by

improving operational performance. Remember:

AGW’s Slaughter Plant Specialist (SPS) team

has reviewed hundreds of plants since 2006.

Our SPS team has observed countless common

sense solutions to improved animal handling and

movement, and one helpful suggestion could

save the plant many labor hours. If it takes five

extra minutes to load an animal due to balking,

and the SPS can help improve movement with

just 12 animals per day, that already equates to

eliminating 60 minutes of balking per day. With

three employees on the killfloor, that’s three labor

hours’ per day saved simply by improving animal

movement.

Second, the AWA slaughter plant review shows

existing—and potential—customers that the plant

is committed to animal welfare. This is particularly

important when it comes to the general public.

Most consumers have no knowledge of the

USDA or state program regarding animal welfare.

Displaying the trusted AWA credentials clearly

communicates the plant’s commitment to

high-welfare handling and slaughter.

MAIN IMAGE: MILOSCIRKOVIC/ISTOCK LEFT: MACADIA/ISTOCK

Finally, as the AWA program continues to

grow, more and more farmers will actively seek

participating plants so they can use the AWA

logo on their meat products.

More than USDA: Slaughter plant owners will

often say, “I am already USDA Inspected and

the inspector is in my plant every day. Why do

I need someone else looking around?” While

USDA is to be commended on recent progress

towards higher welfare handling at slaughter,

USDA inspection standards are generally geared

more toward preventing the next E.coli outbreak

and whether the plant is complying with basic

food safety regulations than maximizing animal

welfare at slaughter and improving meat quality.

Meat quality and stress: Farmers and ranchers

expend a huge amount of time, talent, effort

and, most importantly, money to produce a

consistently high-quality product. Yet all this

can be adversely affected during the last day

—or even hours—of the animals’ life by activities

at the slaughter plant. Animal welfare at slaughter

cannot be ignored, as it directly affects product

quality, as well as consumer perception of the end

product. Aside from the obvious risks of bruising

from poor handling or poor design/maintenance

at the plant, numerous studies have shown unnecessary

stress immediately before slaughter will

adversely affect meat quality. There are several

scientific reasons, including the formation of ATP

(adenosine triphosphate) and muscle glycogen

levels related to stress.

As an independent third-party reviewer, the

SPS can provide valuable insights into animal

movement and identify possible links between

animal welfare and meat quality. Additionally,

they offer practical solutions to reduce animal

stress during unloading, holding, movement,

and stunning—helping to preserve meat quality.

AGW

CERTIFICATION

AND YOUR

SLAUGHTER

PLANT

Explain that you

need the plant to

undergo a basic

review to sell your

products using the

AWA logo

Talk about AGW

and help dispel any

myths that AGW is

an ‘animal rights’

group. Highlight our

industry expertise

and experience

Explain that the

AGW review is free

and confidential,

and could improve

operational

performance

—and profits

Give them

AGW’s Slaughter

Guidelines for

Red Meat/Poultry.

See agreenerworld.

org/certifications/

animal-welfareapproved

Plant owners can

also call AGW for

an informal chat at

800-373-8806

Complete confidentiality: The AGW program is

completely independent and impartial. Everything

we do is confidential. We accept no money from

the industry, and have no links whatsoever to any

animal rights organizations. The outcome of the

slaughter plant review is shared with the plant

management only. AGW staff will work behind the

scenes with the plant owner to find a resolution to

any animal welfare-related issue.

AGW has real expertise: To qualify for the role,

every SPS must have many years of experience

in slaughter operations, along with a solid understanding

of farming and ranching. Once in position,

every SPS receives world-class training in animal

behavior and welfare at slaughter, with annual

updates. Every SPS is also internationally

recognized and certified as an Animal Welfare

Officer (AWO) and Poultry Welfare Officer (PWO).

What happens during the review?

What should a slaughter plant expect during the

review? For a well-run facility, the review will simply

confirm that best practices in handling, stunning,

and slaughter are being followed. Depending on

the number of animals and species, the process

generally takes a couple of hours and includes

an examination of holding pens, alleyways, the

stun box, and stunning procedures, with a short

meeting afterwards to discuss the findings. Plant

owners can review the AGW standards online

or call the office to arrange an informal and

confidential chat with our SPS team.

Farmers and ranchers should discuss the AGW

review with their slaughter plant as early as possible

to help ensure a smooth process.

Charlie Hester is AGW's Lead Slaughter Specialist/

Auditor. This revised article was first published

in Sustainable Farming, summer 2017.



CHEWING IT OVER

Ridge Shinn challenges flawed criticisms of grassfed beef emissions

FLOOP/ISTOCK

A recent paper published in the Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences—one of the

most widely cited scientific journals—claims “that

emissions per kg protein of even the most efficient

grass-fed beef are 10 to 25% higher than those of

industrial U.S. beef and 3 to over 40-fold higher

than a wide range of plant and animal alternatives.”

The study in question—‘U.S. grass-fed beef

is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and

≈10-fold more intensive than common proteindense

alternatives’ by Eshel, Shepon, and Milo—

has already generated significant media coverage

and consumer confusion.

Yet this headline-grabbing paper relies on narrow

assumptions that ignore the proven benefits of

regenerative grazing, especially Adaptive Multi-

Paddock (AMP) systems. For farmers working to

restore land, improve soil health, and raise animals

responsibly, this kind of claim misses the bigger

picture entirely—and risks damaging consumer

confidence in the well-documented environmental

benefits of grassfed and pasture-based beef

systems.

Where the study falls short

One of the key flaws in the study is its failure to

account for carbon sequestration in well-managed

grazing systems. Peer-reviewed research shows

that cattle managed using AMP grazing not only

increases plant biomass by 300–600%, but also

sequesters meaningful amounts of carbon in

the soil.

These outcomes are not hypothetical: they are

backed by real-world data. In Grass-Fed Beef for a

Post-Pandemic World: How Regenerative Grazing

Can Restore Soils and Stabilize the Climate, my

co-author Lynne Pledger and I include over 290

footnotes to peer-reviewed studies that directly

challenge the assumptions in Eshel’s study. (For

an even deeper dive into the science, see Teague

et al (2016), ‘The Role of Ruminants in Reducing

Agriculture’s Carbon Footprint in North America’

in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,

vol. 71, issue 2, 2016.)

What the study leaves out

Eshel and colleagues openly admit they excluded

data from ‘productive pastures.’ Instead, they

based their entire conclusions on “true rangelands

(i.e., low productivity semiarid lands) or slightly

lusher, more productive grasslands” with limited

biomass potential and minimal sequestration.

One quote from the paper states: “It does not

reflect pastures and meadows occupying croplands

(or potential croplands), where the largest

added sequestration rates, which can suppress

production emissions to competitively low levels,

are mostly observed.” And: “This is why we omit

the high sequestration rates that are sometimes

observed on such lush agricultural croplands,

focusing expressly on precipitation-limited

marginal lands in wealthy nations, lands

that can only yield human food via grazingbased

ruminant meat that does not undercut

production of food for direct human

consumption.”

This selective focus on semiarid rangeland

versus high-quality soils prejudices his conclusions

from the outset. Ignoring results from wellmanaged

cropland pastures presents a highly

distorted picture—especially when AMP grazing

has shown benefits even in semiarid regions.

Using our best land

Today, most of the best land in the U.S. is used

to grow corn and soy—nearly 97 million acres—

and it is farmed in a highly industrialized system,

dependent on synthetic fertilizers (much of it

imported), herbicides, insecticides, and heavy fossil

fuel use to plow, plant, harvest, and transport.

Looking at the 'Animal vs Human’ map (next

page), the green area shows land used to grow

food for people, while the dark red shows land

used to grow corn and soy. In some states, up to

98% of farmland falls into that latter category.

About 40% of this crop ends up as ethanol and

distillery by-products. Another 40% goes to feed

industrially raised livestock; in other words, cattle

in CAFOs, chickens in sheds, pigs indoors. The rest

is used to produce oils and corn syrup for human

consumption.

This is our most fertile land: former prairie that

once supported 60 million buffalo in a functioning

ecosystem. But instead of cycling nutrients and

storing carbon, we are now mining it, leading to

erosion, runoff, drought, and flood.

What if we returned even some of that land to

permanent grass and raised 100% grass-fed cattle

on it using AMP principles? We would eliminate

fertilizers and toxic inputs, rebuild soil biology, and

restore the land’s hydrology. This would deliver

enormous ecosystem services—including drought

resilience and flood control in the Mississippi

Valley—while sequestering carbon and producing

nutrient-dense food.

Methane: a misunderstood

piece of the puzzle

Another familiar controversy in studies like this

centers on methane—and once again, context

is missing.

As Lynne Pledger explains in her article,

‘Regenerative Grazing: A Compelling Climate

Strategy’ (published by the Biodiversity for a

Livable Climate website), methane behaves very

differently in a well-managed, regenerative grazing

system than it does in a feedlot. When cattle are

raised entirely on pasture, their emissions occur

“Headlinegrabbing

stories

ignore the

proven

benefits

of regenerative

grazing.”

“Instead

of cycling

nutrients

and

storing

carbon,

we are

mining it,

leading to

erosion,

runoff,

drought,

and flood.”



within a functioning ecosystem that is storing

carbon, cycling nutrients, and supporting the

microbial life that makes soil work.

Pledger highlights, for instance, how methanotrophic

bacteria in healthy pasture soils actively

oxidize methane—something that does not

happen in confinement systems. She also describes

how diverse, high-quality forage improves digestibility

and reduces emissions at the source, while

well-structured soils and active root systems

support the microbial processes that store

atmospheric carbon underground.

While no grazing system eliminates methane

entirely, the carbon cycle in a regenerative system

is far more dynamic. The result is that regenerative

grazing often delivers a net climate benefit, even

accounting for ruminant emissions. As Pledger puts

it, “In carbon accounting, the increase in carbon

sequestration from regenerative management

more than offsets methane generation.” A fact

Eshel and others continue to ignore.

The whole truth

The claim that grass-fed beef is as carbon-intensive

as industrial beef falls apart when we consider the

full picture of regenerative systems. The evidence

shows that regeneratively raised, 100% grassfed

beef—especially when managed using AMP systems

—is significantly less carbon intensive than feedlot

beef, even on semi-arid land.

There is also ample land in the U.S. to support a

shift toward an entirely forage-based beef system.

Much of this potential lies in the acres currently

devoted to corn and soy for livestock feed and

ethanol production. Converting this land back

to pasture and diverse cover crops would help

address some of our most pressing environmental

challenges. It would restore degraded soils, reduce

flooding, recharge aquifers, eliminate many

synthetic inputs, and deliver food that is not only

nutrient-dense, but also part of a functioning

ecosystem.

Cattle can be finished on forage alone in as little

as 20 to 22 months under AMP grazing—a point

that often goes overlooked in studies claiming that

longer lifespans increase emissions. When viewed

in the context of carbon cycling and sequestration,

the time-on-pasture argument simply does not

hold up.

Ironically, several of the studies cited by Eshel

contain data that support regenerative grazing—

including evidence on carbon sequestration, AMP

grazing, and methane mitigation. Yet these insights

are either downplayed or ignored in the Eshel paper

itself. For instance, Mosier et al (2021) note that

“adaptive multi-paddock grazing enhances soil

carbon and nitrogen stocks” and contributes

to “climate change mitigation.” (See ‘Adaptive

multi-paddock grazing enhances soil carbon and

Animal vs Human: the percentage of each U.S. state's agricultural income

from crops grown primarily for animal consumption

“Grassfinished

beef was

found to

have lower

carbon

intensity

than

feedlotfinished

beef.”

nitrogen stocks and stabilization through mineral

association in southeastern U.S. grazing lands’,

Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 288).

Wang et al (2024) found that “grass-finished beef

was found to have lower carbon intensity per

economic activity than feedlot-finished beef.” (See

‘Climate impacts of alternative beef production

systems depend on the functional unit used:

Weight or monetary value’, Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, vol. 121, no. 31.)

Rowntree et al (2020) argue that “regenerative

agriculture … may be necessary to fully regenerate

some landscapes.” (See ‘Ecosystem Impacts and

Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured

Livestock System’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food

Systems, vol. 4.)

These are not fringe sources: they are part

of the core evidence base cited in Eshel’s own

paper. Reaching accurate conclusions demands

considering this evidence in full.

If we are serious about addressing agriculture’s

climate impact, we need policy that supports

grazing ruminants on well-managed pasture—not

subsidies that prop up high-input monocultures

and feedlot beef. Ultimately, regenerative grazing

is not just about carbon. It is about land repair,

biodiversity, rural resilience, and delivering climate

change mitigation alongside broader environmental

benefits the industrial model simply cannot match.

Ridge Shinn is a grassfed beef pioneer, grazing

advocate, CEO of Big Picture Beef, and co-author

of Grass-Fed Beef for a Post-Pandemic World. He

is Executive Director of the Northeast Grass-fed

Beef Initiative (NGBI). Visit ngbi.org

Certification news

WHY

COMMUNICATION

MATTERS

We’re here

to help

you stay

compliant,

not to catch

you out,

assures Tim

Holmes

Tim Holmes is AGW's

Compliance Director

Certification isn’t just a checklist—it’s a working

relationship, built on trust, transparency, and

shared responsibility. When a farm or business

applies to become certified, they agree to follow

the published standards and keep AGW updated

on any changes that could affect compliance.

It’s not about red tape—it’s about making

sure certification continues to mean something,

especially to the people buying your products.

Honest communication

AGW’s certification programs are built on

internationally recognized accreditation (ISO/

IEC 17065), ensuring we operate with consistency,

impartiality, and integrity. Even the most robust

certification system relies on honest communication.

If you make a change on your farm—whether

it’s switching slaughter plants or adjusting animal

handling practices—it’s important to let us know

right away.

Most issues can be addressed before they

escalate. However, discovering them after the

fact—particularly during an audit—may result in

suspension or termination of your certification.

Here’s the bottom line: if you’re not sure

whether a change could affect your certification,

ask us. We’re here to help, not to catch you out.

When to get in touch

Here are some common examples where

communication is essential:

Slaughter plant change: If you switch to a

different slaughter facility, even one already

reviewed, we need to know about it.

New animal sources: Planning to bring in

animals from another farm? If they aren’t certified

or the farmer can’t provide valid AGW paperwork,

check with us first.

Practice changes: Whether it’s disbudding,

castration methods, or weaning timelines—if

there’s any doubt about compliance, ask first.

Unexpected setbacks: Sometimes things go

wrong. Maybe a castration method failed, or an

illness changed your usual weaning age. Let us

know before taking action and we may be able

to grant a temporary derogation.

The point isn’t to micromanage your farm or cause

you stress—it’s to protect your certification and the

integrity of the entire program. AGW standards are

outcome-based, not prescriptive. This gives you

the flexibility to decide how you meet them—but

also the responsibility to communicate openly.

Voluntary certification comes with

real responsibility

Being certified by AGW is a choice. With that

choice comes a commitment—not only to high

standards, but also to the transparency and

accountability that give those standards meaning.

Certification is effective when producers, certifiers,

and consumers each fulfill their roles. However,

its success depends on open communication.

If you're ever unsure, please reach out. It’s

far better to ask than assume—and far easier to

keep your certification than to restore it after a

suspension.



A GREENER WORLD

Global reach

NORTH AMERICA

info@agreenerworld.org

+1 (800) 373-8806

INTERNATIONAL

info@agreenerworld.org.uk

+44 1271 320715

CERTIFICATION

Ashley Khteian

Outreach Specialist

ashley.k@agreenerworld.org

+1 562-276-4102

EMPOWERING SUSTAINABLE

SOLUTIONS IN AGRICULTURE

ACROSS THE WORLD

Now operating in five

continents, A Greener World

promotes practical, sustainable

solutions in agriculture by

supporting farmers and

educating consumers

MARKETING AND LABELING

Callie Casteel

Marketing Services Coordinator

callie@agreenerworld.org

+1 931-548-0664

Promoting A Greener World

AGW is proud to offer

low-cost branded

promotional materials

to help raise awareness

of your certification and

better communicate

the wider benefits of

your farming practices.

Every purchase also

supports our work to

educate and inform

consumers—and helps

keep your certifications

affordable.

For more promotional

materials—and to

place an order (with

shipping)—visit

agreenerworld.org/

shop-agw

From Canada, please

call +1 541-526-1119

AGW APRON $25

• Perfect for farmers’

markets or the kitchen

• 8 oz organic cotton/

recycled polyester

• Black fabric with white

imprint A Greener

World logo

• Adjustable neckline,

two front pockets,

brass rivets, cotton

webbing ties

SHELF TALKER $5

• Sold in packs of five

• Printed on premium

silk stock with

wipeable coating

• 4¼" x 2¾"

• EZ-peal adhesive for

shelf mounting

• Made in the USA

Certified Animal

Welfare Approved by

AGW producers only

REGENERATIVE

BROCHURES $5

• Explains the benefits

of certification

• Ideal for farmers’

markets, farm stores

and other events

• 50 brochures per pack

Certified Regenerative

by AGW producers only

CONSUMER

BROCHURES $5

• Explains the benefits

of certification

• Ideal for farmers’

markets, farm stores

and other events

• 50 brochures per pack

If required for

educational use,

please email info@

agreenerworld.org

CERTIFIED

REGENERATIVE

BY AGW

Measuring real change in partnership to benefit soil, water,

air, biodiversity, infrastructure, and better treatment for

workers and animals.

Farms create a tailored regenerative plan, independently

reviewed and audited annually to assure real progress—

without requiring organic status.

Available in the U.S., Canada, and select international

regions, this practical, trusted certification offers a robust

and trusted validation of your practices—and unlocks

access to growing regenerative markets.

agreenerworld.org/certified-regenerative

Call +1 800‐373‐8806 or email info@agreenerworld.org

CERTIFIED ANIMAL

WELFARE APPROVED

BY AGW STICKER

LABELS $8

• 1" x 1" high-quality

stickers

• Long-life adhesive

• 1,000 stickers per roll

Certified Animal

Welfare Approved by

AGW producers only

CERTIFIED GRASSFED

BY AGW STICKER

LABELS $8

• 1" x 1" high-quality

stickers

• Long-life adhesive

• 1,000 stickers per roll

Certified Grassfed by

AGW producers only

CERTIFIED NON-GMO

BY AGW METAL SIGN

$12

• Ideal for farm gate

or barn wall

• Aluminium 10" X 15"

• Full-color embossed

imprint

• Corner holes for

easy mounting

Certified Non-GMO by

AGW producers only

CERTIFIED

REGENERATIVE BY

AGW METAL SIGN $12

• Ideal for farm gate

or barn wall

• Aluminium 10" X 15"

• Full-color embossed

imprint

• Corner holes for

easy mounting

Certified Regenerative

by AGW producers only

EMBROIDERED

BASEBALL CAP $20

• Our popular styled

baseball cap with

Certified Animal

Welfare Approved

by AGW logo

• 100% Made in USA

• 100% Union made

by Workers United





REDS FROM BLUE

AT A GLANCE

Farm: Blue Bear

Farm & Cattle Co.

Certification date:

April 2021

Size: 200 acres

Soil type:

Loamy clay

Altitude: 242 feet

Rainfall: 51 inches

Enterprises:

Certified Animal

Welfare Approved/

Certified Grassfed

by AGW Red Devon

cattle

bluebeargrassfed.

com

BLUE BEAR FARM (x2)

Meet the farmer

Dawna and her husband Michael Tanner run Blue

Bear Farm & Cattle Co. near Cairo, Georgia. They

raise 60 Certified Animal Welfare Approved by

AGW and Certified Grassfed Red Devon cattle on

200 acres, selling beef direct to customers online.

How did you get into farming?

Time spent on my grandparents’ farm in Oklahoma

provided early inspiration. I was surrounded by the

rhythms of the seasons, cattle life, gardening, and

rock-solid values. I was always drawn back to these

roots and wanted to carry forward their legacy. My

husband, Michael, shared my dream and we took

a late-in-life plunge in our early 60s.

Describe a typical day

It changes with the seasons. We like to get out early

to spend quiet time observing the cattle, gauging

their wellbeing and forage levels to guide their

next move. Fence repairs, maintenance, mowing,

gardening and chicken chores also occupy our

time. As avid readers and writers, we often spend

midday with personal growth projects or business

matters. In the late afternoon, we walk with our

dogs. It’s another opportunity to see our cattle,

move them to a new paddock if needed, observe

other wildlife, and wind down.

What do you love most about what you do?

Seeing actual changes in our soil, our animals, and

forages as a result of the practices we follow—such

as adaptive grazing, no inputs or chemicals, and

a relaxed and stress free environment.

How did you hear about AGW?

Researching the health benefits of pastureraised

beef led us to AGW. The website included

information and resources beneficial to us for both

production and consumer education.

What's the benefit of being certified by AGW?

We view AGW as a path to learning the best

practices. Each evaluation and audit teaches us

something new. We value being measured by

objective and high standards.

Who are your customers?

Folks who care about the source of their food and

want assurances that animals are raised in a way

that is respectful of their nature. Many live in cities

and are grateful for access to clean beef.

What are your business plans for the future?

To continue to grow our herd and offer a more

regular and robust supply of beef.

What is the biggest threat to

sustainable farming?

Corporate consolidation and greenwashing. Giant

corporations that dominate food production do

not have a connection to the land and make it

much harder for independent farmers to survive

financially.

What keeps you awake at night?

The occasional pack of coyotes that run through

our woods, unleashing an uproar of barking by the

canine companions sleeping by our bed.

A GREENER WORD

Catch up with Sustainable Farming articles online via A Greener World’s blog

A CONVENIENT UNTRUTH — Ruminants, and

particularly cattle, are habitually cast as climate villains,

responsible for large amount of GHG emissions because

of a faulty methodology for equating methane with

carbon dioxide emissions.

agreenerworld.org/

a-greener-world/a-convenient-untruth/

FEEDING PIGS — Some farmers assume that when

pigs are given the opportunity to forage they need

little or no supplementary grain and protein feeds.

Unfortunately, this is wrong and has led to

poor pig productivity and health and

welfare problems.

agreenerworld.org/

a-greener-world/feeding-pigs/

LAYING HENS 101 — Pasture-raised eggs can provide

a useful new income stream to an existing farming

business. But as with any new venture, it is essential to

ask yourself some important questions before buying

your first chicks.

agreenerworld.org/

a-greener-world/laying-hens-101/

FOOD SAFETY FROM FARM TO MARKET — As the

prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria escalates

and food recalls become a daily occurrence, sanitary

handling from the farm to farmers’ market

stall is a necessity.

agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/

food-safety-from-farm-to-market/

WINTER 2021 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Pasture-raised eggs can provide a useful income

stream to an existing farming business. But as

with any new venture, it is essential to ask yourself

some important questions before buying in your

first chicks.

Do I have the time and additional resources to

accomplish this task? Can I afford the initial outlay?

What are my costs of production? Do I have a

viable local market, such as a major metropolitan

area or popular farmers’ market? Will local stores

or restaurants take my eggs? What makes my farm

and eggs different from local competition?

Only you can answer these questions. Do not

rush: think it through carefully, as these questions

may lead to other issues you might not have

considered.

Remember: the number of birds you plan to

keep will not only dictate the number of eggs

you will have to sell, but also things like space

requirements for brooding, housing and range

area, perch provision, feed supplies and so on.

Make sure you do your homework first!

Choosing the breed

Most small-scale farmers choose traditional-type

breeds for their good ranging and foraging abilities.

Here are some commonly used breeds for

pasture-based production:

Araucana: 250 eggs of blue or green shell color

per cycle. Can be flighty. Some farmers add

the colored eggs of these birds into a carton

to make them stand out from competition.

Barred Rock: 250–260 eggs of brown shell

color per cycle. Calm bird, great disposition.

Delaware: 250–260 eggs of brown shell color

per cycle. Calm bird, hardy for cold regions.

The Delaware breed was used to start the

modern broiler industry.

Rhode Island Red: 250-260 eggs of brown

shell color per cycle. Friendly and calm.

White Leghorn: 280 eggs of white shell color

per cycle. Nervous and flighty.

Note: AGW does not endorse any specific breed.

Lay rates will vary depending on strain and

hatchery.

Sourcing birds

AGW standards require you to source chicks or

point-of-lay (POL) pullets from an AGW-certified

laying hen/breeder farm. If there is no suitable

supplier near you, you can order chicks from any

hatchery or farm as long as the birds are placed

on your farm by 36 hours of age. Note: you can

only source POL pullets from AGW-certified

laying hen/breeder farms.

If your hatchery is within driving distance it’s

well worth picking up the chicks instead of having

them mailed. The faster you get the chicks on the

ground eating and drinking, the better overall

results you will have.

Speak with a local veterinarian or extension

agent to discuss potential vaccination against

diseases in your area. Some hatcheries offer

vaccinations when you order.

Brooding

It is possible to brood and raise a small number

of chicks in a garage or a spare outbuilding. But

brooding is a critical time for the young chick and

any brooding area must be predator proof with

access to water, electricity and a heat source to

keep chicks warm. You will need to provide a

minimum of 0.25 sq. ft. brooding space per chick,

increasing the area appropriately as the birds grow.

You will also need to provide training perches

made from natural tree limbs or lumber for young

pullets from 10 days of age through to point of

lay. Remember that AGW’s laying hen standards

require chicks “to have access to forage by seven

days of age.” Some farmers place a piece of sod

in the brood chamber to help the chicks become

more accustomed to foraging.

Housing

After brooding, chicks will need suitable housing

with access to pasture. There are many different

types of stationary and mobile housing kits

available to purchase. If you’re looking to save

costs, you can build your own coop from scratch

(plenty of designs are available), while it is certainly

possible to modify an old farm wagon, camper

or mobile home into a mobile coop or roost, and

construct your own nesting and perching systems.

Likewise, an existing barn with extra space will

work well. Just like the brooding area, you will

need water and electricity and possibly a heat

source, depending on where you farm.

There are pros and cons to using mobile and

stationary structures.

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • WINTER 2021

LAYING HENS 101

Thinking of setting up a new AGW-certified laying hen

operation? Frank Morison looks at the basics

MIKE SUAREZ

WINTER 2021 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Pasture-raised eggs can provide a useful income

stream to an existing farming business. But as

with any new venture, it is essential to ask yourself

some important questions before buying in your

first chicks.

Do I have the time and additional resources to

accomplish this task? Can I afford the initial outlay?

What are my costs of production? Do I have a

viable local market, such as a major metropolitan

area or popular farmers’ market? Will local stores

or restaurants take my eggs? What makes my farm

and eggs different from local competition?

Only you can answer these questions. Do not

rush: think it through carefully, as these questions

may lead to other issues you might not have

considered.

Remember: the number of birds you plan to

keep will not only dictate the number of eggs

you will have to sell, but also things like space

requirements for brooding, housing and range

area, perch provision, feed supplies and so on.

Make sure you do your homework first!

Choosing the breed

Most small-scale farmers choose traditional-type

breeds for their good ranging and foraging abilities.

Here are some commonly used breeds for

pasture-based production:

Araucana

Araucana: 250 eggs of blue or green shell color

per cycle. Can be flighty. Some farmers add

the colored eggs of these birds into a carton

to make them stand out from competition.

Barred Rock: 250–260 eggs of brown shell

color per cycle. Calm bird, great disposition.

Delaware: 250–260 eggs of brown shell color

per cycle. Calm bird, hardy for cold regions.

The Delaware breed was used to start the

modern broiler industry.

Rhode Island Red: 250-260 eggs of brown

shell color per cycle. Friendly and calm.

White Leghorn: 280 eggs of white shell color

per cycle. Nervous and flighty.

Note: AGW does not endorse any specific breed.

Lay rates will vary depending on strain and

hatchery.

Sourcing birds

AGW standards require you to source chicks or

point-of-lay (POL) pullets from an AGW-certified

laying hen/breeder farm. If there is no suitable

supplier near you, you can order chicks from any

hatchery or farm as long as the birds are placed

on your farm by 36 hours of age. Note: you can

only source POL pullets from AGW-certified

laying hen/breeder farms.

If your hatchery is within driving distance it’s

well worth picking up the chicks instead of having

them mailed. The faster you get the chicks on the

ground eating and drinking, the better overall

results you will have.

Speak with a local veterinarian or extension

agent to discuss potential vaccination against

diseases in your area. Some hatcheries offer

vaccinations when you order.

Brooding

It is possible to brood and raise a small number

of chicks in a garage or a spare outbuilding. But

brooding is a critical time for the young chick and

any brooding area must be predator proof with

access to water, electricity and a heat source to

keep chicks warm. You will need to provide a

minimum of 0.25 sq. ft. brooding space per chick,

increasing the area appropriately as the birds grow.

You will also need to provide training perches

made from natural tree limbs or lumber for young

pullets from 10 days of age through to point of

lay. Remember that AGW’s laying hen standards

require chicks “to have access to forage by seven

days of age.” Some farmers place a piece of sod

in the brood chamber to help the chicks become

more accustomed to foraging.

Housing

After brooding, chicks will need suitable housing

with access to pasture. There are many different

types of stationary and mobile housing kits

available to purchase. If you’re looking to save

costs, you can build your own coop from scratch

(plenty of designs are available), while it is certainly

possible to modify an old farm wagon, camper

or mobile home into a mobile coop or roost, and

construct your own nesting and perching systems.

Likewise, an existing barn with extra space will

work well. Just like the brooding area, you will

need water and electricity and possibly a heat

source, depending on where you farm.

There are pros and cons to using mobile and

stationary structures.

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • WINTER 2021

LAYING HENS 101

Thinking of setting up a new AGW-certified laying hen

operation? Frank Morison looks at the basics

MIKE SUAREZ

12 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • FALL 2016 FALL 2016 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 13

Verifying and obtaining state or federal approval

for your labels should become an integral step in

your food safety program. AWA offers labeling

support—including design and assistance with

approval—to certified farmers and ranchers at no

charge (see page 18–19).

Off to market

As you transfer your product to cold storage,

keep a close eye on temperature. Food poisoning

bacteria generally grow best in the so-called danger

zone of 40°F to 140°F. Best practices and federal

regulation require meat to be stored at 40°F or

below. Some markets may prohibit the sale of

fresh meat. In this case, frozen meat should be

stored at 0°F. As a rule, you should verify and

document the temperature of your fridge or

freezer—at minimum—once a day. Documentation

may be as simple as writing temperatures on a

calendar or clipboard outside of your fridge or

freezer. Alarms are now available that will call or

text your cell phone if there is a power outage or

if temperatures increase above a set level. If you

suspect your product has been in the “danger

zone” for longer than two hours, mitigate any

risk and condemn the lot. No farmer wants to

see products thrown in the garbage, but when in

doubt, throw it out. Consumer health and brand

integrity cannot be compromised.

If you do not have access to a refrigerated vehicle

for transport, ice chests are a simple and effective

transport method. Ice chests should be thoroughly

cleaned and sanitized before every use to prevent

bacterial harborage or residues. Reusable ice packs

and dry ice are suitable for keeping temperatures

controlled without wreaking havoc on your product

labels. Note that market displays should never

include temperature sensitive product: Photos

of your products, empty egg cartons and dummy

packs/displays of your produts are safe and simple

marketing practices.

As the prevalence of antibiotic resistant

bacteria escalates and food recalls become a

daily occurrence, the need to establish sanitary

handling practices from the farm to market has

become a necessity. Yet the growing public anxiety

surrounding the dreaded question of “What’s for

dinner?” could present a real opportunity for family

farmers to change the face of the food industry

by constructing trustworthy local brands for

the everyday consumer.

A food safety culture

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reports that one in six Americans

get sick from eating contaminated food every

year. That’s almost 17 percent of the American

population. Now, think back to your most recent

bout with a stomach bug: chances are whatever

caused it was most likely not on your grocery

list for quite some time—if ever again. For those

who sell directly to the public, every food poisoning

illness not only represents potential damage

to your margins, but loss of trust with your brand

—and local food producers as a whole.

Developing sound food safety practices for your

farm can seem daunting, especially if you are in

the early stages of starting your on-farm food

business. But a solid program doesn’t have to

be complicated. In fact, food safety is simply a

concoction of common sense and science you

can tailor to meet the needs of your individual

enterprise.

Handling and packaging

If you are new to selling at farmers’ markets, be

aware that regulations vary by state, so contact

your local inspection agency to ensure you meet

all necessary safe food handling requirements

well before the start of your season. But whether

you are new to selling directly to the public or a

seasoned veteran, sanitary handling should be

a top priority. All food handling should begin with

hand washing. Use hot soapy water and scrub for

a minimum of 20 seconds. Cover any cuts or sores

with appropriate dressings and make sure to wear

gloves. Processing tools, including cutting boards,

knives and scabbards, should be cleaned and

sanitized before each use. One billion bacteria

can fit on the size of a pinhead, so just because

a surface looks clean doesn’t necessarily mean

it is. Cross contamination can happen at any

point before packaging, so if you or a team

member has a communicable illness, do not

handle product.

When it comes to food packaging, choose

the best option to fit your market. Vacuum

packaging—an increasingly popular and sanitary

choice—is wonderfully versatile from fridge to

freezer. However, poor seals and leaking packages

commonly occur, so have a plan to handle leakers

(faulty vacuum seals or poorly crimped clips on

ground chubs) to ensure you don’t contaminate

the rest of your product—or your customer’s

shopping. Consider supplying disposable plastic

bags to prevent cross contamination between

your products and other customer purchases.

The final packaging step is labeling. In the U.S.,

the number one reason for product recall is

allergen mislabeling. Risks can be minimized with

accurate ingredient declaration and proper label

approval. Before you take your product to market,

ensure labeling is correct and complies with all

regulation. Although labeling regulations can be

somewhat confusing, there are eight mandatory

requirements for your finished product label:

1. Product name 2. Inspection legend and

establishment number—also known as the

plant bug 3. Handling statement 4. Net weight

5. Ingredient declaration 6. Address line

7. Nutrition panel 8. Safe handling instructions

Always keep raw and ready-to-eat (RTE) cutting

boards, utensils and serving pieces separate, and

sanitize them before every market. If you intend

to offer food samples, use a meat thermometer to

ensure cooked samples reach correct temperatures

and offer toothpicks or small disposable forks

to avoid handling samples directly and potential

cross-contamination from consumers.

Most farmers’ markets require food vendors to

establish handwashing stations at their individual

stall. Generally speaking, a sufficient hand washing

station includes a source of free flowing water, a

catch basin or bucket, hand soap, paper towels

and a trash receptacle.

Finally, encourage your customers to refrigerate

or freeze their purchases within two hours of

purchase verbally and through signage/labeling.

Many consumers rely on reusable bags and soft

coolers to hold their products while shopping.

Although reusable bags are a great eco-friendly

alternative to disposables, remind your customers

to wash their bags after every use as cross

contamination can be a major food safety threat.

Where practical, offering to hold purchases in

a dedicated cooler for later collection can be

extremely popular with customers.

Your customers can be your biggest advocates—

or your loudest public critics. Building consumer

trust by providing safe and wholesome product

is essential to establishing your customer base

and growing your business. As with high-welfare

farming, when planning your food safety program,

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Caitlin Aguilar is AGW’s Director of Quality. She

spent the past decade in farming, food processing

and regulatory compliance, working the last five

years in quality control and regulatory compliance

for a California-based poultry producer

FOOD

SAFETY

FROM FARM

TO MARKET

Caitlin

Aguilar

offers best

practice

advice on

food safety

at your

farmers’

market stall

FURTHER

INFORMATION

The Farmers

Market Coalition

provides extensive

tutorials and

handling guidelines:

farmersmarket

coalition.org;

select news and

food safety

Contact your

nearest State

University Extension

Programs for

information on

local regulations

and market

requirements

Find expert advice

on food safety

practices, news

and alerts at

foodsafety.gov

CAITLIN AGUILAR (x2)

Ensure product labeling is correct and complies

with all regulatory requirements

Ice chests are a simple and effective method for transporting food to the farmers’

market. Ensure they are thoroughly cleaned and sanitized before every use

Most farmers’ markets require vendors

to have basic handwashing stations

12 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • FALL 2016 FALL 2016 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 13

Verifying and obtaining state or federal approval

for your labels should become an integral step in

your food safety program. AWA offers labeling

support—including design and assistance with

approval—to certified farmers and ranchers at no

charge (see page 18–19).

Off to market

As you transfer your product to cold storage,

keep a close eye on temperature. Food poisoning

bacteria generally grow best in the so-called danger

zone of 40°F to 140°F. Best practices and federal

regulation require meat to be stored at 40°F or

below. Some markets may prohibit the sale of

fresh meat. In this case, frozen meat should be

stored at 0°F. As a rule, you should verify and

document the temperature of your fridge or

freezer—at minimum—once a day. Documentation

may be as simple as writing temperatures on a

calendar or clipboard outside of your fridge or

freezer. Alarms are now available that will call or

text your cell phone if there is a power outage or

if temperatures increase above a set level. If you

suspect your product has been in the “danger

zone” for longer than two hours, mitigate any

risk and condemn the lot. No farmer wants to

see products thrown in the garbage, but when in

doubt, throw it out. Consumer health and brand

integrity cannot be compromised.

If you do not have access to a refrigerated vehicle

for transport, ice chests are a simple and effective

transport method. Ice chests should be thoroughly

cleaned and sanitized before every use to prevent

bacterial harborage or residues. Reusable ice packs

and dry ice are suitable for keeping temperatures

controlled without wreaking havoc on your product

labels. Note that market displays should never

include temperature sensitive product: Photos

of your products, empty egg cartons and dummy

packs/displays of your produts are safe and simple

marketing practices.

As the prevalence of antibiotic resistant

bacteria escalates and food recalls become a

daily occurrence, the need to establish sanitary

handling practices from the farm to market has

become a necessity. Yet the growing public anxiety

surrounding the dreaded question of “What’s for

dinner?” could present a real opportunity for family

farmers to change the face of the food industry

by constructing trustworthy local brands for

the everyday consumer.

A food safety culture

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reports that one in six Americans

get sick from eating contaminated food every

year. That’s almost 17 percent of the American

population. Now, think back to your most recent

bout with a stomach bug: chances are whatever

caused it was most likely not on your grocery

list for quite some time—if ever again. For those

who sell directly to the public, every food poisoning

illness not only represents potential damage

to your margins, but loss of trust with your brand

—and local food producers as a whole.

Developing sound food safety practices for your

farm can seem daunting, especially if you are in

the early stages of starting your on-farm food

business. But a solid program doesn’t have to

be complicated. In fact, food safety is simply a

concoction of common sense and science you

can tailor to meet the needs of your individual

enterprise.

Handling and packaging

If you are new to selling at farmers’ markets, be

aware that regulations vary by state, so contact

your local inspection agency to ensure you meet

all necessary safe food handling requirements

well before the start of your season. But whether

you are new to selling directly to the public or a

seasoned veteran, sanitary handling should be

a top priority. All food handling should begin with

hand washing. Use hot soapy water and scrub for

a minimum of 20 seconds. Cover any cuts or sores

with appropriate dressings and make sure to wear

gloves. Processing tools, including cutting boards,

knives and scabbards, should be cleaned and

sanitized before each use. One billion bacteria

can fit on the size of a pinhead, so just because

a surface looks clean doesn’t necessarily mean

it is. Cross contamination can happen at any

point before packaging, so if you or a team

member has a communicable illness, do not

handle product.

When it comes to food packaging, choose

the best option to fit your market. Vacuum

packaging—an increasingly popular and sanitary

choice—is wonderfully versatile from fridge to

freezer. However, poor seals and leaking packages

commonly occur, so have a plan to handle leakers

(faulty vacuum seals or poorly crimped clips on

ground chubs) to ensure you don’t contaminate

the rest of your product—or your customer’s

shopping. Consider supplying disposable plastic

bags to prevent cross contamination between

your products and other customer purchases.

The final packaging step is labeling. In the U.S.,

the number one reason for product recall is

allergen mislabeling. Risks can be minimized with

accurate ingredient declaration and proper label

approval. Before you take your product to market,

ensure labeling is correct and complies with all

regulation. Although labeling regulations can be

somewhat confusing, there are eight mandatory

requirements for your finished product label:

1. Product name 2. Inspection legend and

establishment number—also known as the

plant bug 3. Handling statement 4. Net weight

5. Ingredient declaration 6. Address line

7. Nutrition panel

7. Nutrition panel

7 8. Safe handling instructions

Always keep raw and ready-to-eat (RTE) cutting

boards, utensils and serving pieces separate, and

sanitize them before every market. If you intend

to offer food samples, use a meat thermometer to

ensure cooked samples reach correct temperatures

and offer toothpicks or small disposable forks

to avoid handling samples directly and potential

cross-contamination from consumers.

Most farmers’ markets require food vendors to

establish handwashing stations at their individual

stall. Generally speaking, a sufficient hand washing

station includes a source of free flowing water, a

catch basin or bucket, hand soap, paper towels

and a trash receptacle.

Finally, encourage your customers to refrigerate

or freeze their purchases within two hours of

purchase verbally and through signage/labeling.

Many consumers rely on reusable bags and soft

coolers to hold their products while shopping.

Although reusable bags are a great eco-friendly

alternative to disposables, remind your customers

to wash their bags after every use as cross

contamination can be a major food safety threat.

Where practical, offering to hold purchases in

a dedicated cooler for later collection can be

extremely popular with customers.

Your customers can be your biggest advocates—

or your loudest public critics. Building consumer

trust by providing safe and wholesome product

is essential to establishing your customer base

and growing your business. As with high-welfare

farming, when planning your food safety program,

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Caitlin Aguilar is AGW’s Director of Quality. She

spent the past decade in farming, food processing

and regulatory compliance, working the last five

years in quality control and regulatory compliance

for a California-based poultry producer

FOOD

SAFETY

FROM FARM

TO MARKET

Caitlin

Aguilar

offers best

practice

advice on

food safety

at your

farmers’

market stall

FURTHER

INFORMATION

The Farmers

Market Coalition

provides extensive

tutorials and

handling guidelines:

farmersmarket

coalition.org;

select news and

food safety

Contact your

nearest State

University Extension

Programs for

information on

local regulations

and market

requirements

Find expert advice

on food safety

practices, news

and alerts at

foodsafety.gov

CAITLIN AGUILAR (x2)

Ensure product labeling is correct and complies

with all regulatory requirements

Ice chests are a simple and effective method for transporting food to the farmers’

market. Ensure they are thoroughly cleaned and sanitized before every use

Most farmers’ markets require vendors

to have basic handwashing stations

FALL 2019 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Domesticated pigs descend from forest dwelling

wild boar, which root and forage for food. Pigs are

omnivorous and can eat a variety of food of both

plant and animal origin. Based on these two facts,

some farmers assume that when pigs are given

the opportunity to forage they need little or no

supplementary grain and protein feeds.

Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong and,

in some cases, has led to poor pig productivity

—and even health and welfare problems. While

alternative and foraged feeds can play a nutritional

role at certain stages of a pig’s production cycle,

they will rarely meet the pig’s full dietary needs

and supplementary feed is still essential.

Different nutritional needs

The Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW

(AWA) standards require that pigs have access to a

ranging and foraging area. If the ranging or foraging

area is well managed and/or the pigs have access

to good quality forages, it can provide some of

the pigs’ dietary needs and therefore reduce the

need for expensive grain and protein supplements.

However, any reduction in supplements fed will

depend on the age and stage of production of the

pig—and must be considered carefully.

Dry sows (pregnant sows) can eat a lot of feed

each day, and the nutritional goal is to maintain

body condition while ensuring sows do not get

overfat. A crude protein level of 13–14% and energy

of 12–13 MJ/kg is sufficient for these animals. Dry

sows are therefore a type of pig where the potential

to replace some supplementary grain and protein

feeds with alternative feeds is relatively high.

Lactating sows, however, have a much higher

demand for both protein (17–18%) and energy

(13.5–14 MJ/kg), as do newly weaned piglets (protein

20%, energy 14 MJ/kg). These classes of pigs are

far more likely to require supplementary grain and

protein feeds in order to optimize their growth and

production levels and to maintain health.

As pigs grow, the levels of protein and energy

required in the diet reduces. So by the time pigs

are in the finishing stage, the protein and energy

levels required are similar to those of a dry sow.

If pigs have been well nourished during the

immediate post-weaning and growth stage, the

finishing period offers a further opportunity to

once again utilize alternative feeds and reduce


Lysine

In order to maintain pig growth and health, farmers

should have a good understanding of the protein

levels found in different kinds of feed. However,

it is equally important to be aware of the types

of protein—and the specific amino acids—that

are present.

Pigs need the essential amino acid lysine in

their diets. Lysine is described as “essential” and,

as it cannot be synthesized in the body, the pigs’

needs must be met from the diet.

Lysine is essential for lean growth. If the pigs’ diet

is high in energy, but provides insufficient lysine, the

pigs will still grow; however, they will be unable to

lay down muscle and any increase in weight will

come from fat deposition. (If you regularly find a

high ratio of fat to meat at slaughter, you might

want to examine the lysine levels in the diet.)

Feeds that are high in lysine include peas, field

beans, soy and fishmeal. Whey, potatoes, vegetable

waste and root crops such as fodder beet are

commonly used alternative feeds for pigs, but are

all low in lysine. If these alternatives are fed, they

must be balanced by protein supplements that

include lysine to maintain pig growth and health.

Energy

Pigs need good sources of energy in their diets.

Energy drives the metabolic processes that result

in the production of meat (and milk in the case

of a lactating sow). The survival of the piglet in

the first 2–3 days of life is highly dependent on

a regular supply of energy; if the sow’s nutrition

is inadequate and leads to poor quality milk, the

susceptibility to disease and piglet mortality rises.

Energy is particularly important at weaning

time. If pigs are weaned too young or are

presented with low-quality diets at weaning,

they can become energy deficient. Under these

situations their immune system will not function

efficiently, leading to higher incidence of disease.

Peas, field beans, soy and fishmeal are good

energy sources, as well as good lysine sources.

Corn and cereal grains are good energy sources,

but low in lysine.

What about pasture?

Well-managed pasture can reduce the need for

grain and supplement for dry sows and finishing

pigs by as much as 50%. Some estimates suggest

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • FALL 2019

FEEDING PIGS

Pig productivity and health will suffer without the right

feed, warn Anna Heaton and Tim Holmes

MIKE SUAREZ

FALL 2019 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Domesticated pigs descend from forest dwelling

wild boar, which root and forage for food. Pigs are

omnivorous and can eat a variety of food of both

plant and animal origin. Based on these two facts,

some farmers assume that when pigs are given

the opportunity to forage they need little or no


Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong and,

in some cases, has led to poor pig productivity

—and even health and welfare problems. While

alternative and foraged feeds can play a nutritional

role at certain stages of a pig’s production cycle,

they will rarely meet the pig’s full dietary needs

and supplementary feed is still essential.

Different nutritional needs

The Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW

(AWA) standards require that pigs have access to a

ranging and foraging area. If the ranging or foraging

area is well managed and/or the pigs have access

to good quality forages, it can provide some of

the pigs’ dietary needs and therefore reduce the

need for expensive grain and protein supplements.

However, any reduction in supplements fed will

depend on the age and stage of production of the

pig—and must be considered carefully.

Dry sows (pregnant sows) can eat a lot of feed

each day, and the nutritional goal is to maintain

body condition while ensuring sows do not get

overfat. A crude protein level of 13–14% and energy

of 12–13 MJ/kg is sufficient for these animals. Dry

sows are therefore a type of pig where the potential

to replace some supplementary grain and protein

feeds with alternative feeds is relatively high.

Lactating sows, however, have a much higher

demand for both protein (17–18%) and energy

(13.5–14 MJ/kg), as do newly weaned piglets (protein

20%, energy 14 MJ/kg). These classes of pigs are

far more likely to require supplementary grain and

protein feeds in order to optimize their growth and

production levels and to maintain health.

As pigs grow, the levels of protein and energy

required in the diet reduces. So by the time pigs

are in the finishing stage, the protein and energy

levels required are similar to those of a dry sow.

If pigs have been well nourished during the

immediate post-weaning and growth stage, the

finishing period offers a further opportunity to

once again utilize alternative feeds and reduce


Lysine

In order to maintain pig growth and health, farmers

should have a good understanding of the protein

levels found in different kinds of feed. However,

it is equally important to be aware of the types

of protein—and the specific amino acids—that

are present.

Pigs need the essential amino acid lysine in

their diets. Lysine is described as “essential” and,

as it cannot be synthesized in the body, the pigs’

needs must be met from the diet.

Lysine is essential for lean growth. If the pigs’ diet

is high in energy, but provides insufficient lysine, the

pigs will still grow; however, they will be unable to

lay down muscle and any increase in weight will

come from fat deposition. (If you regularly find a

high ratio of fat to meat at slaughter, you might

want to examine the lysine levels in the diet.)

Feeds that are high in lysine include peas, field

beans, soy and fishmeal. Whey, potatoes, vegetable

waste and root crops such as fodder beet are

commonly used alternative feeds for pigs, but are

all low in lysine. If these alternatives are fed, they



must

include lysine to maintain pig growth and health.

Energy

Pigs need good sources of energy in their diets.

Energy drives the metabolic processes that result

in the production of meat (and milk in the case

of a lactating sow). The survival of the piglet in

the first 2–3 days of life is highly dependent on

a regular supply of energy; if the sow’s nutrition

is inadequate and leads to poor quality milk, the

susceptibility to disease and piglet mortality rises.

Energy is particularly important at weaning

time. If pigs are weaned too young or are

presented with low-quality diets at weaning,

they can become energy deficient. Under these

situations their immune system will not function

efficiently, leading to higher incidence of disease.

Peas, field beans, soy and fishmeal are good

energy sources, as well as good lysine sources.

Corn and cereal grains are good energy sources,

but low in lysine.

What about pasture?

Well-managed pasture can reduce the need for

grain and supplement for dry sows and finishing

pigs by as much as 50%. Some estimates suggest

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • FALL 2019

FEEDING PIGS

Pig productivity and health will suffer without the right

feed, warn Anna Heaton and Tim Holmes

MIKE SUAREZ

SPRING 2019 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Ruminants, and particularly cattle, are habitually

cast as climate villains, responsible for large

amount of greenhouse gas emissions. According

to a much quoted United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) figure, livestock are

responsible for 14.5 percent of human greenhouse

gas emissions. 1 Eighty percent of these emissions

come from ruminants, half being methane, and

a quarter nitrous oxide.

As a result, there are innumerable scientific

papers comparing the environmental impact of

dairy and beef unfavorably with pork and poultry,

with vegetarian diets, with milk substitutes, with

test-tube meat and so on. Virtually all of these

papers and the FAO’s figure of 14.5 percent are

flawed because they employ a formula for equating

the climate impact of methane emissions with

that of carbon dioxide—through the unit known

as “CO2 equivalent”—which is highly misleading.

Nearly all the mainstream media and the

public remain unaware of what is in effect a

calumny against ruminant livestock farmers.

Myles Allen and colleagues at the Oxford Martin

School at Oxford University, UK, have published

useful material designed to explain this dubious

accounting to non-scientific readers.

Comparing apples and pears

Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) act upon

the global temperature in very different ways. For

the first few years after it has been released into

the atmosphere, a given quantity of methane will

have a much stronger global warming impact than

the same amount of CO2. The standard metric for

equating the two gases, Global Warming Potential

(GWP100), currently estimates that over 100 years

a kilo of methane has 28 times as much global

warming effect as a kilo of CO2, or 34 times as

much if you take into account certain feedback

mechanisms. The FAO’s calculation that livestock

cause 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions is based on the 34 figure.

However, methane degrades in the atmosphere

relatively quickly — it has a half-life of about 10

years — whereas CO2 is cumulative; that is to

say a single emission of CO2 will remain in the

atmosphere for many hundreds of years, and

a series of them will accumulate, continually

increasing the amount of global warming.

The difference in behavior between the two

gases can be seen in the graphs (right). If emissions

of the two gases are rising, then the global warming

effect also rises, but more steeply in the case

of CO2. If emissions of the two gases are constant,

then the warming effect of methane is relatively

constant, whereas the warming effect of CO2

increases as it accumulates in the atmosphere.

Finally, if emissions of both gases are falling, then

the net warming effect of methane begins to drop

(in other words the drop in emissions has a

cooling effect), whereas the warming effect of

CO2 continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate,

and only becomes constant when emissions

cease altogether.

This means that a single pulse of CO2 can be

equated to a sustained increase in the emissions

rate. A farmer who has been keeping the same

number of cattle on their land for several decades

will not be increasing global warming significantly

because the methane will be disappearing from

the atmosphere almost as fast as it is being

added. The same applies to a nation, or indeed

the world, if its total cattle population remains

stable over a number of decades.

But a single emission of CO2, say from using

a tractor to spread artificial fertilizer, will remain in

the atmosphere and continue to have a warming

effect more or less indefinitely. And repeated

emissions of CO2 from annual use of diesel and

applications of fertilizer will accumulate in the

atmosphere, causing the global temperatures to

increase. GWP100 fails to account for this crucial

difference, resulting in perverse assessments of

the relative performance of the two gases and

frequent exaggeration of the role played by

methane.

There are none so blind …

None of this is really news. There have been plenty

of scientific papers analyzing the problem. 2 Myles

Allen comments: 3

“Researchers have debated for decades about

the adequacy of this approach … The point was

made in the first major climate report produced

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) way back in 1990. Those early discussions

were loaded with caveats: Global Warming

Potentials, which underpin the traditional practice

of CO2 equivalence, were introduced as “a simple

approach … to illustrate the difficulties inherent

in the concept.

“The problem with developing a concept is

that people might use it. Worse they might use

it and ignore all the caveats that attended its

development. This is more or less what happened

with GWPs as used to create CO2 equivalence.

“The science caveats were there, and

suggestions for alternatives or improvements

have continued to appear in the literature. But

policy makers needed something (or thought they

did) and the international climate negotiations

community grasped the first option that became

available, although this has not been without

challenges from some countries.” 4

This doesn’t entirely explain why the FAO,

who ostensibly exist to support farmers, should

adopt a metric that is so unfavorable to ruminant

husbandry. There is a suspicion that FAO

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • SPRING 2019

A CONVENIENT

UNTRUTH

Cattle are often blamed for more global warming

than they cause because of a faulty methodology

for equating methane emissions with carbon

dioxide emissions, says Simon Fairlie

BERND BRUEGGEMANN

RISING

EMISSIONS

CONSTANT

EMISSIONS

FALLING

EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS

WARMING

EMISSIONS WARMING

WARMING

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

CO2

CH4

CO2 CH4 graphs. Oxford Martin,

‘Climate Metrics for Ruminant Livestock’,

July 2018 (https://www.oxfordmartin.

ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climatemetrics-forruminant-livestock.pdf).

Emissions

impossible?

SPRING 2019 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • 9

Ruminants, and particularly cattle, are habitually

cast as climate villains, responsible for large

amount of greenhouse gas emissions. According

to a much quoted United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) figure, livestock are

responsible for 14.5 percent of human greenhouse

gas emissions. 1 Eighty percent of these emissions

come from ruminants, half being methane, and

a quarter nitrous oxide.

As a result, there are innumerable scientific

papers comparing the environmental impact of

dairy and beef unfavorably with pork and poultry,

with vegetarian diets, with milk substitutes, with

test-tube meat and so on. Virtually all of these

papers and the FAO’s figure of 14.5 percent are

flawed because they employ a formula for equating

the climate impact of methane emissions with

that of carbon dioxide—through the unit known

as “CO2 equivalent”—which is highly misleading.

Nearly all the mainstream media and the

public remain unaware of what is in effect a

calumny against ruminant livestock farmers.

Myles Allen and colleagues at the Oxford Martin

School at Oxford University, UK, have published

useful material designed to explain this dubious

accounting to non-scientific readers.

Comparing apples and pears

Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) act upon

the global temperature in very different ways. For

the first few years after it has been released into

the atmosphere, a given quantity of methane will

have a much stronger global warming impact than

the same amount of CO2. The standard metric for

equating the two gases, Global Warming Potential

(GWP100), currently estimates that over 100 years

a kilo of methane has 28 times as much global

warming effect as a kilo of CO2, or 34 times as

much if you take into account certain feedback

mechanisms. The FAO’s calculation that livestock

cause 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions is based on the 34 figure.

However, methane degrades in the atmosphere

relatively quickly — it has a half-life of about 10

years — whereas CO2 is cumulative; that is to

say a single emission of CO2 will remain in the

atmosphere for many hundreds of years, and

a series of them will accumulate, continually

increasing the amount of global warming.

The difference in behavior between the two

gases can be seen in the graphs (right). If emissions

of the two gases are rising, then the global warming

effect also rises, but more steeply in the case

of CO2. If emissions of the two gases are constant,

then the warming effect of methane is relatively

constant, whereas the warming effect of CO2

increases as it accumulates in the atmosphere.

Finally, if emissions of both gases are falling, then

the net warming effect of methane begins to drop

(in other words the drop in emissions has a

cooling effect), whereas the warming effect of

CO2 continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate,

and only becomes constant when emissions

cease altogether.

This means that a single pulse of CO2 can be

equated to a sustained increase in the emissions

rate. A farmer who has been keeping the same

number of cattle on their land for several decades

will not be increasing global warming significantly

because the methane will be disappearing from

the atmosphere almost as fast as it is being

added. The same applies to a nation, or indeed

the world, if its total cattle population remains

stable over a number of decades.

But a single emission of CO2, say from using

a tractor to spread artificial fertilizer, will remain in

the atmosphere and continue to have a warming

effect more or less indefinitely. And repeated

emissions of CO2 from annual use of diesel and

applications of fertilizer will accumulate in the

atmosphere, causing the global temperatures to

increase. GWP100 fails to account for this crucial

difference, resulting in perverse assessments of

the relative performance of the two gases and

frequent exaggeration of the role played by

methane.

There are none so blind …

None of this is really news. There have been plenty

of scientific papers analyzing the problem. 2 Myles

Allen comments: 3

“Researchers have debated for decades about

the adequacy of this approach … The point was

made in the first major climate report produced

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) way back in 1990. Those early discussions

were loaded with caveats: Global Warming

Potentials, which underpin the traditional practice

of CO2 equivalence, were introduced as “a simple

approach … to illustrate the difficulties inherent

in the concept.

“The problem with developing a concept is

that people might use it. Worse they might use

it and ignore all the caveats that attended its

development. This is more or less what happened

with GWPs as used to create CO2 equivalence.

“The science caveats were there, and

suggestions for alternatives or improvements

have continued to appear in the literature. But

policy makers needed something (or thought they

did) and the international climate negotiations

community grasped the first option that became

available, although this has not been without

challenges from some countries.” 4

This doesn’t entirely explain why the FAO,

who ostensibly exist to support farmers, should

adopt a metric that is so unfavorable to ruminant

husbandry. There is a suspicion that FAO

8 • SUSTAINABLE FARMING • SPRING 2019

A CONVENIENT

UNTRUTH

Cattle are often blamed for more global warming

than they cause because of a faulty methodology

for equating methane emissions with carbon

dioxide emissions, says Simon Fairlie

BERND BRUEGGEMANN

RISING

EMISSIONS

CONSTANT

EMISSIONS

FALLING

EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS

EMISSIONS

WARMING

EMISSIONS WARMING

WARMING

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

TIME

CO2

CH4

CO2 CH4 graphs. Oxford Martin,

‘Climate Metrics for Ruminant Livestock’,

July 2018 (https://www.oxfordmartin.

ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climatemetrics-forruminant-livestock.pdf).

Emissions

impossible?

PO Box 115, Terrebonne OR 97760

NON-PROFIT ORG

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

BEND OR

PERMIT NO. 12

“The most important aspect of our farming here is the welfare and wellbeing of our animals. Our decade

of AGW certification reflects that and assures our customers we really are farming the way we say we are.”

Jennifer Sisney, Landon Farm, Sperryville, VA

COVER PHOTO: LEANDROHERNANDEZ

PRACTICAL, DOWN-TO-EARTH, RESPECTED

A GREENER WORLD

FARMING IS OUR BUSINESS

visit agreenerworld.org

call 800-373-8806

MIKE SUAREZ

A Greener World | PO Box 115 | Terrebonne OR 97760 | 800-373-8806 | info@agreenerworld.org

@AGreenerWorld | @AGreenerWorld | @AGreenerWorldOrg

A Greener World's Sustainable Farming Magazine — Summer 2025 — V10 I2

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

A Greener World's Sustainable Farming Magazine — Summer 2025 — V10 I2

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?