Raising Flavour: The Story Behind Our Cattle

We recently sent the first cattle that were born here on the farm of to slaughter. While we have slaughtered animals we bought in over the past few years, these are our first homebred. Most farms don’t run a birth to finish cattle system. There are even fewer places where you will get to taste the meat at an venue that has control of the whole process; from birth through to finish, hanging, butchery, cooking. The ultimate in farm to fork. Check out our upcoming Sunday roasts for the opportunity to try our meat (https://www.threepools.co.uk/upcoming-events).

It has taken 3 years from birth to get our cattle to slaughter. They have lived outside, all year round, on grass, supplemented with hay and the occasional bit of tree fodder (cut branches off trees). We give them ‘yellow rockies’ for trace elements. Absolute minimum input, maximum time on ground which has minimum inputs. In theory, this is how to achieve terroir; the idea that food tastes like the land it comes from. Our fields have not had inputs for potentially decades and were shown in one university experiment to have the most biologically active soils in the test. Our aim is to produce the most nutrient dense, flavourful food. This is how that might work.

For full transparency these 2 individuals did receive antibiotics and pain relief on one occasion. When they were castrated. We castrate the boys as it allows us to manage a simple system without having to manage a group of bulls separately. Plus we want to ensure the safety of guests when we have so many visitors over the course of a year. Since we had these original calves we have got better at using rubber castration rings and now do not need cut castrate, so there is no longer a need for antibiotics / pain relief.

There are criticisms of our production system. Taking 3 years to finish a cow is slow compared to most commercial systems. In what is an incredibly complex debate, some claim that the methane emissions are greater from an older animal (depending on carbon analysis model used this often misses the context of the landscape in which that animal is living or the way in which methane behaves differently in its lifecycle to that of carbon released from fossilised sources). We are aiming for a much better environmental performance from our land than most commercial systems. We are only able to achieve this financially by running events. While our low input system may maximise biodiversity, improve nutrient density, reduce resource consumption and sequester carbon (We did have a carbon audit suggest we sequester >220% more than we emit despite working with longer lived animals). It is true that it takes up a much greater land area per unit of meat produced. The land share vs land spare argument.

Intensive commercial farming on an area of land produces enough food, that more land can be left for wildlife (land spare). Extensive slow production such as ours allows wildlife to exist within the system so supporting biodiversity (land share). If people farm extensively (land share) the total area of farmed land on earth must increase. Agricultural encroachment is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and ‘wild’ land.

We are fans of the land share idea for a number of reasons. Biodiversity is essential; a collapse in biodiversity is going to cause more problems than it getting really hot through climate change (although the climate change is going to cause a collapse in biodiversity). It’s the biodiversity loss that will limit society’s ability to feed itself. Maintaining biodiversity within a farm system allows the system to see the benefits of biodiversity. That’s nutrient cycling, natural pest management, fruit pollination, livestock health… an appreciation of wildlife for those that live there? The UK is also considered one of the most nature denuded nations in the world, so we need to allow some space, we can’t all land spare and leave the wildlife in the rest of the world. Britain has already cut down its rainforests.

The other argument, that if we aren’t farming intensely here, we’ll have to eat into wild spaces to produce enough food also doesn’t stack up. Huge land areas are used up growing crops for biofuels or feeding anaerobic digesters. Large areas of productive farmland are covered in solar panels. There is an acceptance of crazy levels of food waste. Western society in particular is suffering from an overproduction of nutrient-empty food, obesity and malnourishment are a growing issue within a society which has access to plenty of food.

So, levels of production isn’t the issue. We need better quality food. Better food. We think that’s what we do. Yes, it is a more expensive final product, but the cheap stuff is going to cost us a lot more in the long run.