Pasture Raised Turkey Roast Recipe

Family, food and holidays are so intertwined in our memories that they are nearly synonymous. Just like most American households for 30 some years our family has celebrated our traditions of Thanksgiving with a feast.

Holding hands around the table to pray and say thanks, signing the traditional tablecloth (which I usually don’t get embroidered until the last couple of days before the next Thanksgiving), playing board games, the annual skeet shoot and the college football game are big parts of our turkey day memories.

Yet, nothing says Thanksgiving more than the centerpiece roasted turkey. This year was extra special as we prepared our first Rain Crow pasture raised turkey.

In preparing for the feasting day I made the dreary trek to the local grocery store earlier in the week. Our local grocery was running a special that for a certain amount of groceries bought you received a free turkey. It made me think about our food system and how in the world the factory farms raise turkeys for less than fifty cents a pound?

Cheap food but with high cost and consequences to the birds, our health, flavor, and respect for the things of this world. But, that is a topic for another time and I intend to write about how to cook the perfect pasture raised turkey.

Pasture-raised: Pasture-raised turkeys roam around outside and eat primarily grass, so their food and activity level — both of which affect flavor — differ from those of their grain-fed cousins raised in confinement. These birds tend to be heritage breeds made to be outside where the factory farm birds are so heavy of breast and short of leg that they can’t thrive out in the open.

Our birds are frozen for delivery and food safety. So it must first be thawed slowly in the refrigerator for 3-4 days. This is where I normally brine the turkey but I wanted to taste the natural flavor and juiciness of just the bird this year, so I did not brine.

A room temperature turkey will roast more evenly, so early in the morning I removed the turkey from the refrigerator (about an hour before putting it in the oven).

Next I prepped the turkey by placing some of the herbs I grow in the body cavity. My daughter picked fresh rosemary, thyme and sage from our greenhouse to use. I then added softened butter along with salt and pepper to the outside skin.

I simply placed the bird breast up in the roasting pan with some chicken broth, onions, celery and carrots. These will help keep the bird moist and allow me to baste during the cooking process. It will also contribute to some great tasting gravy.

The basic reason most turkeys are dried out and tough is because they are overcooked. In the past, the USDA recommended cooking a turkey to 180 degrees, to assure all bacteria was killed. Problem was, so was all the flavor and moisture.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service announced a change in the “Single Minimum Internal Temperature Established for Cooked Poultry” in 2006 and the USDA says it’s safe to cook a turkey to 165 degrees.
I prefer to cook to 160, remove from the oven and cover with foil while I prepare the gravy with the drippings from the pan and it continues to cook to the full 165.

These cooking times are merely a guide. Instead I use a good digital thermometer and test the temperature. I also prefer to use a lower temperature to roast the bird. I start at 325 and after an hour lower the temperature of the oven to 300.

10-13 lb. – 1 ½ to 2 ¼ hr.
14-23 lb. – 2 to 3 hr.
24-27 lb. – 3 to 3 ¾ hr.
28-30 lb. – 3 ½ to 4 ½ hr.

I must tell you that my family is a critical group when it comes to food. It is hard to WOW them. Everyone agreed that this was our best turkey ever!

Simple good food and a wonderful memory. Food you can feel good about eating.

When Jack heard of the Joplin devastation, he wanted to do something to help but didn’t have a lot to offer financially. However, he did have his grill which survived the fire, a willing heart to help others in need and his skill to cook for large crowds. When he asked friends to help with logistics to feed Joplin residents and rescue workers this weekend, word spread like wildfire.

We discovered that Americans throughout the United States want to express their love and support to the residents of Joplin. What started as one man with a grill from a business in ruins has mushroomed into our community of American family farmers as well as friends of our family reaching out to Joplin through Jack’s efforts.

American Welfare Approved is helping us coordinate donations, food, refrigeration and ground support. Jack will be in Joplin this weekend and he will try to keep you posted with ground reports. Follow us on Facebook or this blog for news from Joplin.

Dr Patricia Whisnant
AmericanGrassFedBeef.com

November 17, 2010 01:54 PM UTC by John Stossel

This Week’s Column: Natural Is Not Always Better

“Natural” food sounds so pure. Tampering with nature feels wrong.  So it’s easy to believe that things like chemical pesticides and genetically modified food are unhealthy.  It’s intuitive to believe that they harm the planet. But as so often happens, what we know just isn’t so. My Fox Business program this week (Thursday at 9pm ET) takes on some of those cherished environmental beliefs.

In my syndicated column this week, I examine one:  “Natural” food promoters claim grass-fed beef is better for the environment that corn-fed cattle:

Michael Pollan, the prolific food author and activist, wrote in The New York Times that “what was once a solar-powered ruminant (grass-fed steer) (has been turned) into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine”. How so? Farmers burn fossil fuels to ship corn to feed cows instead of letting them eat what’s naturally under their feet.

The American Grassfed Association — surprise, surprise — says cattle are better for the environment because harmony is created between the land and the animals.

People believe. Nobody likes the idea of cattle jammed into feed lots.

…But so often, what sounds logical is just wrong.

…Once again, modern technology saves money and is better for the earth. By stuffing the feed-lot animals with corn, farmers get them to grow faster. Therefore they can slaughter them sooner, which is better for the earth than letting them live longer and do all the environmentally damaging things natural cows do while they are alive.
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/11/17/this-weeks-column-natural-is-not-always-better/#ixzz161Oad4wL

 Response to John Stossel’s piece – Busting Another Food Myth, Natural is No Always Better

 I currently serve as President of the American Grassfed Association (AGA) and represent around 400 grassfed producers.  Our membership is primarily comprised of small-scale family farms that put care and pride into the protein they produce.  Our foundation is that we produce food for the table with respect for the animals, the land, the quality and healthfulness of the food and the farm. 

 Grassfed versus grain-fed beef is a topic that seems to provoke controversy. Determining which of these methods of production is “best” is a complicated matter bringing in animal welfare, human health and environmental outcomes. It is unfortunate that Mr. Stossel appears to have taken a rather blinkered and biased approach to this very complex subject.

In making the statement about grassfed meat that “there’s no evidence it’s better for the environment or better for you” Mr. Stossel relies heavily on the evidence of Dr. Jude Capper. Dr. Capper has presented a few brief papers and posters at recent Animal Science conferences but her main published work is on dairy cattle. Aside from the fact that dairy production is a very different thing to beef or lamb production Dr. Capper does not mention that she has close associations with organizations that have a vested interest in promoting the most intensive systems of production. At AGA we are of course in favor of sustainable, pasture base systems but at least we come right out and say so!  Why did Stossel not ask Capper who funded her research?  Don’t forget the idea of follow the money.  It just might prove bias in the outcome.

 We are very familiar with Dr. Capper’s work. Her dairy paper was the subject of significant conversation “Bad Science” blogs [see http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/2009/11/16/beware-of-bad-science/]

 Capper claims that a ‘whole-system approach’ proves that intensive livestock systems – where meat or milk production is maximized per animal, per acre – are less environmentally damaging than ‘inefficient’ pasture or grass-based systems.  Yet it is Dr Capper who is not looking at the ‘whole system’ – or indeed the ‘bigger picture’ we all face. For the vast majority of scientists who are working in climate related issues contend that it is intensive agriculture – with its heavy reliance on fossil fuels and other damaging environmental practices – which is the real climate culprit. And in the face of the reality of climate change and ever-decreasing oil reserves, ‘business as usual’ agriculture is just no longer an option.

 AGA was not the only organization to challenge this report from Dr. Capper and indeed other similar reports from other authors. One of the biggest problems is the fact that any report that states grassfed meat is less environmentally friendly than grain fed meat does not take into account the environmental costs of all the inputs needed for the industrial system. The true cost of feedlot beef has to take account of the full environmental footprint caused by producing cattle feed – raising vast monocultures of corn which is the most heavily laden fossil fuel crop in the country, including the destruction of vast tracts of rainforest in order to grow soy and corn and the dead zone in the gulf caused by runoff of artificial fertilizers into the Mississippi River.   This is before we start adding in the environmental pollution from feedlots, the greenhouse gas emissions from the stockpiled manure and no mentions of the positive influence of carbon sequestration that is specific to grazing grassfed animals.

 AGA are disappointed that Dr. Capper maintains that there is no evidence of the health benefits of grassfed versus grain-fed beef. On the contrary there are many published papers on the health giving benefits of omega 3 fatty acids, conjugated lineoleic acids (CLAs) and vitamin E – all found at higher levels in grassfed rather than grain fed meat. Dr. Capper states that the differences in the levels of these compounds between grass and grain fed are “minor”. Perhaps she hasn’t read a recently published report (partly carried out by the USDA) that states CLA levels were 117% higher in animals that were simply pasture finished – not on pasture all their lives – compared with those finished on concentrates. Or another study that showed grassfed meat was several times higher in vitamin E than either grain-fed animals or – surprisingly – grain-fed animals that were given high doses of synthetic vitamin E.

 The representation by Stossel and Capper that other inputs to the industrial system such as synthetic hormones and sub-therapeutic antibiotics are of no importance is a travesty.  They contend that since it has not been proven that these inputs cause direct harm in the beef produced then it is not logical to demand products that do not have them involved in their production.  This ignores the research that indicates otherwise.  But more importantly it ignores the desires of society who may choose not have them as a part of their diet.  A growing number feel strongly that while sub-therapeutic antibiotics and synthetic hormones contribute significantly to the accelerated growth of feedlot animals but ignore the issues of antibiotic resistance and pre-mature puberty.  It is the height of elite mind sets that does not allow a consumer to choose what they want in their diet without being presented all the facts and instead presents a one sided approach to a complicated issue.  It must be remembered that the consumer has the freedom to vote for what agricultural system (pasture based or industrial) by how they spend their dollars.

 Mr. Stossel sadly relied on only one source for his information.  He didn’t take the time to listen to both sides of the argument and, like a poorly researched paper, published his article without review or evidence. This lack of rigor academically and journalistically appears to be the only way industrial agriculture can defend itself.

 Mr. Stossel I challenge you to follow up and present both sides instead of the biased report you presented on the show.

Sincerely,

Patricia Whisnant, DVM

President

American Grassfed Association

Grass fed producer

Since the time our kids were born I had dreams of them loving farm life, the animals, the outdoors, and developing a deep passion for the wonder of the land and passion for its stewardship.

 Simple living that feels so right to the soul and keeps you in tune with the natural order of the world. Yet, for decades I have been a first hand witness of the decline of rural life.  For a country rooted in the foundation of an agrarian society over the last 70-80 years there has been a mass exodus leaving the farm.

The brightest and most cherished resource our farms and rural communities possessed was being lost.  The deplenishing resource is the loss of our children.  Children raised on a farm who leave and have no interest in pursuit of a career in agriculture.   Many leave willingly as they have witnessed the hard work, little monetary reward and sacrifice of their parents.  Many leave because of the allure and amenities that city life offer.  Yet, a great many leave behind a lifestyle they love because there is not a way to stay on the farm and make a living to support their families.

Of the 285,000,000 people living in the United States less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms including hobby farms). There are only about 960,000 persons claiming farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation. The number of farms in the U.S. stands at about two million.

In 1935, the number of farms in the United States numbered 6.8 million as the population edged over 127 million citizens. As the number of farmers has declined, the demand for agricultural products has increased due to increased population alone.

 This increased demand has been met with the aid of large-scale mechanization (the use of large, fossil fuel guzzling pieces of farm equipment), genetically modified crop varieties, commercial fertilizers, and pesticides. The need for human labor has also declined as evidenced by the increase in agricultural labor efficiency – from 27.5 acres/worker in 1890 to 740 acres/worker in 1990 (Illinois data; Hunt, 2001).

It has been estimated that living expenses for the average farm family exceed $47,000 per year. Clearly, many farms that meet the U.S. Census’ definition of a farm would not produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, less than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000.

As the U.S. farm population has dwindled, the average age of farmers continues to rise. In fact, about forty percent of the farmers in this country are 55 years old or older (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The graying of the farm population has led to concerns about the long-term health of family farms as an American institution. The picture has not been enticing for ambitious young people to seek out careers on the family farm which may not support additional family units.  To many folks raised on the farm it has become a place of recreation, a trip home to see the family once or twice a year and a nest egg of inheritance that can one day develop into the next planned subdivision.

 Indeed, as I graduated from the University of Tennessee with a BS in Animal Science the agricultural experts were reading the eulogie over the death of the family farm.  The behemoth integrated corporate farms had just too great an advantage by virtue of the economy of scale forcing the smaller scale farms into an arena in which they can not compete.  Thinking of just the livestock industry today 2% of the livestock facilities raise over 40% of all livestock produced. 

Yet, today we are witnessing a food revolution where a new consumer wants to know how their food is grown and who grows it.  They ask questions, read labels, do their investigative homework and decide ethically what food they want to eat. 

This new consumer is met by a new generation of farmers.  This new generation of farmer can be referred to as grandpa’s gutsy grandkids willing to take risk and tread where the megafarms fear to go.

These guys are selling direct and flaunting the attributes of their products that can’t be replicated by the industrial factory farm system.  They seek and find a market where the consumer is appreciative of what is raised with pride on American family farms.  They are finding a niche where their farms, their families and their communities can thrive.

This is bringing many of these farm raised kids back to the farm after graduation and taking the new challenge by seriously studying the market and their farm’s place in it.

Our two oldest boys have done just that as they have come home to work on the farm where they grew up. Peter, manages our processing plant and keeps a close eye on the production end of raising our cattle.  The future looks bright as he joins the family in building a new way of looking at family farms.

 

Ethical Food is at the foundation of grass roots food politics.  Indeed people have begun to vote for what exists in the world by how they spend their dollar.  This food movement is not an outcome of policy set by the government or even health and wellness groups, rather it is a movement generated from the consumer level.  

The new consumer wants to know where their food comes from and how it is raised.  A recently published research report by Context Marketing, http://contextmarketing.com/sources/feb28-2010/ethicalfoodreport.pdf, has tracked the ethical claims that matter most to people today and how these attributes influence their food purchases. 

Ethical food is defined by the attributes and perceived benefits that can be linked to how a food is raised and processed, its effect on the environment, its quality and safety.  These attributes can be highly personal. 

When those in the survey were asked to identify what they mean by “ethical food” over 90% said that they believe it is a food that protects the environment by using sustainable production methods, meets high quality and safety standards and has high regard for animal welfare.

In this survey 70% of the respondents went so far as to say they are willing to pay more for food they consider to be produced with higher ethical standards.  However, trust is given conditionally to ethical claims and in the report three out of four consumers said they have some skepticism when viewing ethical claims because they do not always mean what they imply.

At Rain Crow we are an American family farm and raise our cattle on certified organic pastures, never in confinement.  We never administer antibiotics, we never use synthetic hormones.  We allow the animal to fulfill its natural biological instincts (grazing) and we have high regard for animal welfare from birth to harvest. 

 These are all ethical claims that you can find on our retail label.  Yet, we back up these claims by 3^rd party verification audits.  Our organic pastures are inspected yearly by One Cert.  Our grassfed claims are inspected yearly by the American Grassfed Association and our animal welfare standards are inspected yearly by Animal Welfare Approved.  We strongly feel that these certifications help to assure our customers that we are who we say we are and that they can have confidence in what they receive from our families farm.

The Expo is spread out over three days of carefully crafted events that are designed to connect local family farms and artisan food producers to consumers and trade businesses. We were proud to be a part of this event as an exhibitor, participant and as a speaker.

As an exhibitor we set up with hundreds of local farmers to display for the public what we do, how we do it and why we do it. For many this included offering product for sale much like a giant farmers market. For us it meant offering a sample of our grassfed beef to many who have never tasted it.

We offer the information to explain how our beef differs from conventionally raised beef. We feel that a prime goal in the grassfed message is to provide the consumer with the needed information so they can make an informed decision at the meat counter.

A particular joy this year for Mark and I were to kind of sit back and watch. We have done our share of these mammoth events that leave you dead tired and sore on your feet. This year we took along our college intern, Carrie Leoni, and our now-old-enough-to-participate daughter, Katie Grace.

They did a wonderful job of talking; giving out samples and making sure the crowd went away with the educational brochures. It is of particular satisfaction to see a new generation of raised-on-the-farm kids go out into the consumer public and explain with pride what they do.

As a participant I especially enjoyed networking with other farmers who tackle agriculture in a similar approach as us. These farm families have become friends and we keep up with them through the year. Many times sharing advice along with their successes and challenges. This event had over 1500 in attendance and it was especially exciting to see the enthusiasm of the attendees / consumers seeking out farms and farmers who produce products with pride and care on their family farms.

As a speaker on the panel for “Let Them Eat Grass” I got to share our personal farm story along with why I think grassfed is best. The grassfed message is a passion and it is something I love to tell people about with pictures and by speaking. Contrasting a solar based supply model with grassfed beef produced by sustainable farms to the journey of beef from farm to the table with factory farming I explain the choice.

Sustainable grassfed farms are better for the animals, better for the environment, better for the consumer and better for the family farms. Contrasting the industrial model which may produce cheap food, but at what cost and harm? Harm to the animals placed in CAFO, harm to the environment through heavy dependence on fossil fuel and waste management, and harm to the consumer through the heavy use of antibiotics and hormones.

The Family Farmed Expo was a pivotal event that connected in a direct manner farm and table. If you have opportunity to attend this event or one similar in your area then I highly recommend you do so. To become more conscious of the food you eat and how it is grown influences so much of how we live. Remember you vote for what exists in this world by how you choose to spend your dollars in the supermarket.

So,imagine my surprise when about 10 years ago he goes out and buys a plane, make sense? It didn’t to me. He bought a Cessna 182 with the idea of taking lessons. He has now logged many hours and enjoys flying a great deal as a pilot. I tell him it is a spiritual problem; meaning, he is only comfortable when he is in charge! Today, he pilots a Cessna 206.

We have been given the opportunity to have some of our beef in Whole Foods Market and have been supplying the Midwest region for close to a year. We have recently been accepted to place some beef into the North Atlantic and Northeast regions.

We are very grateful for a company like Whole Foods to partner with farmers such as ourselves to source products directly from the farm. It has the potential to breathe new life into many family farms. Yet, the sourcing of beef directly from farms has unique challenges both to the farmer, the processor and the buyers.

We are hopeful that through communication, transparency and patience it is a program that will work for us the farmer, for Whole Foods the retailer, and for the consumer –WIN–WIN–WIN.

How does flying and selling beef to Whole Foods connect? We left today in our Cessna 206 for a promotional trip to Boston/Cambridge area. We will stay for about 10 days to tell the grass fed story and provide consumers a chance to taste grass fed beef in 8 different Whole Foods Markets.

My husband describes it as,Be careful what you ask for! Yes, we are farmers and our favorite place is on the farm but this week we will be wearing our marketing and cooking hats as we talk the grass fed story in Boston.

Producers who take the plunge to market their products direct must often assume the role of the jobs that are usually in the middle between the farm and table.

Chances are that at some point in your life you have had an opportunity to visit a farmer’s market or roadside stand. In the last eight years, the number of farmers markets has increased almost 80% percent,and there are now over 3,000 marketsnationwide.  Approximately 20,000 farmers sell their products only at farmer markets.

Farmers markets are making a comeback from New York City to Los Angles.Virtually every city and town, large and small has access to a farmers market that sells locally grown and raised products. Locally grown is generally defined as having been produced within a certain distance from the market. These markets are a great way to support the small family farm.

A farmer’s market has a community feel unlike a grocery store or a store in a mall. You can talk to the farmers about where their farm is located, how much land they farm, when the produce was grown, just about anything having to do with the origin of the food. You can stop and chat with neighbors, even swap good recipes. You can actually get to know the people who are growing the food you are eating.

These days the Internet can bring products from the family farm to you. Not many of us live near cattle farms or farms that grow coffee beans. We are still able to support the family farm by buying products from them over the Internet.

Community supported agriculture is an idea that is taking hold in farming. CSA denotes a community of people who pledge to support a farm so that the farmland becomes the community’s farm. This may or may not entail having a legal agreement. The growers and consumers provide mutual support and share both the risks and benefits of food production.

Usually members or share-holders of the farm commit that they will cover the cost of operating the farm including salaries. They in turn receive shares in the farms output through the growing season. The risks are shared by the investors. Most often these risks involve poor harvests due to bad weather or infestations by pests.

Since the output from the farm is sold directly to CSA members, the farmers receive better prices and do not have to spend as much on marketing and transporting goods. A potential win-win for consumers and farmers.

Most CSA’s have a wide variety of vegetables, fruits and herbs. Often they will also provide eggs, meat, milk and items produced on the farm such as baked goods and jellies and jams.

Virtually all CSA’s adhere to environmentally sound farming practices. In addition, CSA farms are actively involved in their communities. The farms often offer tours, host pot luck dinners, sponsor events for children and offer educational programs for the community and schools.

You may want to check out community supported agriculture in your area. It is a good way to support your local farmers.

Family farms are not able to achieve the efficiencies that come with large-scale operations.However,family farms are generally more efficient in protecting plant and animal diversity and in limiting waste products.If they are able to market their products directly to consumers at farmers markets or through the Internet eliminating the middlemen.

Family farmers are taking advantage of selling their products at local markets or directly through the Internet rather than competing through international commodity markets.

In traditional food markets,approximately 91 cents of every dollar spent on food goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen and marketers, most of who are not based in the community.By selling directly to consumers, as much as 80 cents of each food dollar goes right to the farmer.

When the income of a family farm increases the impact is felt in the local community. By purchasing more goods and services at local businesses the farmer is directly helping his or her community.

Family farms are the foundation of strong communities.They allow consumers to enjoy a connection to their food and to enjoy healthier food.