IMPETUS FOR GRASS–FED BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE BEEF BELT

Alternative food networks (AFNS) offer consumers more transparency and information about the production of their food. The grass-fed beef sector could be considered an AFN. Although per capita beef consumption is decreasing from a peak in 1975, an increasing percentage of the beef consumed in the United States comes from alternative, small-scale, grass-fed cattle suppliers who currently produce about 3 percent of the beef sold in the United States (King 2010). Grass-fed beef remains largely a niche market attending to critical consumers who prefer a more sustainably produced product (Riely 2011). In this essay I examine the recent growth of grass-fed beef production within the traditional beef-producing area of the southern Great Plains to better understand the cultural attitudes and motivations of grass-fed beef producers. Shifts in consumers' beef preferences stem from greater public awareness of conventional beef-production techniques. The questionable use of antibiotics and grain for feeding cattle is part and parcel of what Marx referred to as "fetishism" of products, where exploitative realities are hidden in commodity production (Pred 1998). The central idea behind fetishism is that the consumer is less aware of potentially disturbing aspects of commodity production. The commodity chain of beef is rarely considered or discussed until a large outbreak of animal disease disrupts the food supply and threatens the health of human consumers (Harrington 2003; Atkins 2008). Popular books like Beyond Beef and Fast Food Nation incited critical reflection about beef consumption (Rifkin 1992; Schlosser 2001, respectively). This momentum, combined with increasing levels of heart disease stemming from saturated fat intake, has altered the popular narrative about conventional beef. The Information Age and critical consumerism are gradually leading a demand-driven change in beef production away from large-scale feedlots and toward smaller-scale, grass-fed operations. Alternative beef production is somewhat unusual in the U.S. Beef Belt because of the significant geographical and economic advantages for conventional beef production that already exist in the region (Broadway 2000; Harrington and Lu 2002). In addition, the costs associated with marketing, slaughtering, and transportation are much lower for conventional beef than for grass-fed beef due to economies of scale (MacLachlan 2001). Conventional cattle are generally slaughtered one year sooner than grass-fed cattle are, and the costs associated with smaller-scale slaughter facilities and direct marketing of products make grass-fed beef production more expensive. However, a growing supply of eager consumers is willing to spend nearly three times the market price of conventional beef for a grass-fed beef product (Blezinger 2004). Despite this increasing demand for grass-fed beet, this type of beet production is much more difficult and includes greater economic risk. Why would greater numbers of beef producers within the Beef Belt be drawn to this more complicated process? I seek to answer this question by examining the current status of grass-fed ranching. THE SETTING The largest beef-producing states in the United States are Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska (NASS 2007) (Figure 1), but, in general, the market for higher-end, grass-fed beef is in urban locales and along the coasts. The traditional Beef Belt of the United States developed in the southern Great Plains due to the regions low humidity and high evaporation rates, which minimize the threat of animal disease in larger-scale enterprises (Hart and Mayda 1998). Industrial regimes such as scientific diets for cattle and larger-scale slaughtering operations led toward greater vertical integration of the beef industry (Broadway woo). Clustering of slaughtering and feedlot facilities evolved in southwestern Kansas (Harrington and Lu 2002; Broadway and Stull 2006), taking advantage of the area's sparse population--fewer people to complain about smells and the low quality of life for workers as well as animals--and high local unemployment rates. …