The cold also didn’t appear to affect the end product. Indeed, the beef was, in his estimation, pretty good.

Gibson — a beef producer and direct-market butcher from Moray, Scotland — was visiting the Canadian Prairies as part of a Nuffield Scholarship, investigating factors affecting meat quality in grass-fed and other beef production systems. Having visited different systems and eaten steaks across continents and hemispheres, the focus on quality and consistent genetics in Canada’s beef herd was among the reasons Canadian beef stands out — particularly in contrast to his native United Kingdom.

Defining meat eating quality

Meat eating quality is, for Gibson, a somewhat amorphous confluence of “intrinsic qualities” — flavour, tenderness, juiciness, overall palatability and nutrient density — as well as “extrinsic qualities” such as animal welfare, diet (grass-fed versus grain-fed), the aging process and other elements relating to consumer perception of the product.

The motivation behind his investigation stemmed from the observation that a shift to full grass-fed production on his own farm increased variability in the end product and subsequent dissatisfaction from his customers. That inconsistency, said Gibson, is reflective of a wider challenge with global beef production.

“In the United Kingdom, and indeed around the world, we produce beef in many ways to many standards: it could be a 48-month-old heifer, a 12-year-old cow, a 366-day-old bull or an 18-month-old stirk. It could be Highland, Aberdeen Angus, Limousin, Belgian Blue or Holstein. It could be grass-fed, grain-fed, indoor-reared, outdoor-reared. It could be, and is, anything and everything in between,” he wrote in his final scholarship report.

“We have a production system based on inconsistency of production, with the aim of producing a consistent product.”

In Gibson’s full grass-forage system, for example, meat quality can wane as an animal’s full nutritional requirements for positive, consistent growth are not met through their first winter. Unfortunately, subsequent compensatory growth narrows the window for achieving optimized tenderness, a key factor in consumer perception of eating quality.

“As more farming businesses go down (the 100 per cent grass-fed) route do we, as an industry, risk creating a product that satisfies consumer ideals, right up until they try to eat it and are left dissatisfied?” his report continues.

“Do we need a product that carries itself, that excites and potentially puts a chef out of a job? Or do all the wider factors that the consumer considers when making a purchase play a greater part than the physical properties of the product itself?”

How Canadian genetics and climate support consistency

Many factors can affect overwintering weight gain in full grass-pasture systems. Wet winters are a major issue in Gibson’s home region, as this pushes nutritional needs while preventing relaxation and rumination in the herd.

Keeping cattle “clean and dry” in cold winters, harsh as they are, is one factor Gibson observed supporting product consistency in Canadian beef. A focus on genetics and opportunity for scalability also play a role in offsetting the negative impact of climactic variability — something beef producers in countries such as Uruguay, for example, do not have to contend with.

“You’ve got tighter genetics and tighter breeds that you’re using, and that gives a greater consistency. And, as always, you guys benefit from scale,” said Gibson, speaking to Canadian Cattlemen in December 2025.

“Here, our production system can be 12-month-old bull beef. It can be a 40-month-old native heifer. It could be continental steer, and native highlander, and it all still comes under Scotch beef. That’s partially a result of having smaller farms. We’re all working off different systems, different genetics … Whereas, if it was just one farm covering the whole area, the consistency would be much greater, I suspect.”

Why grading systems matter for beef eating quality

The quality of a country’s meat grading system is another factor in meat eating quality, as well as consumer perception (of) that quality.

“The grading system (in the United Kingdom) is purely yield based. Anything, in my mind, is better than that,” said Gibson.

Grading by using marbling as a proxy for quality, as is done in Canada, the United States and Japan, is a step up. He considers Australia a gold standard, however, as the use of marbling and pH assessments, and considerations for how different cuts will eat in different cooking styles “allows the customer to really hone into what they want and what suits them.”

Grain-fed vs grass-fed debate varies by country

Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and environmental issues puts grass-fed beef on a comparative pedestal in the U.K. This stands in contrast to much of the rest of the world, where grain-derived products are more popular.

This observation tracks with analysis from Canada Beef. According to Mark Klassen, the organization’s executive vice-president, globally there is a “movement towards grain-fed product, with major exporters increasing the amount of grain-fed production and adopting grading systems that recognize marbling.”

In Canada, specifically, where most cattle are pasture-raised but finished on grain rations, the level of marbling has similarly increased.

“At the same time, the retail demand index has also increased, indicating that Canadians have an appreciation for higher-quality grades of beef, which are differentiated by marbling,” said Klassen.

Perceived health benefits of grass-fed beef do drive interest in North America, however, which is something producers can use to market their product. Though not a bad thing, Gibson said the differences in perception in places such as Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. are comparatively absent in Australia — at least at many major beef retailers — thanks in part to the country’s in-depth, consumer-oriented grading system. Indeed, it’s not uncommon for grass- and grain-fed beef to sit side-by-side in the butcher counter.

What consumers say they want versus what they buy

An overarching lesson from Gibson’s travels is that what constitutes “good” beef varies considerably across the globe.

“In the U.S., they would prize tenderness above all other things. Indeed, around the world, grain-fed would be rewarded more than the grass-fed equivalent,” he said.

“This is when my preconception was blown out of the water. Grass-fed is not the best … Grass-fed appeals to a privileged, predominantly European ideal. For many others around the world it has too much bite, it is too gamey and it’s too inconsistent.”

But what people purchase for their grill and table, and what the public says they want, also isn’t without contradiction.

Gibson’s early experience in the U.S. highlighted a public palate preferring beef that’s “bland to the point of being uneventful.” So, upon visiting a 100 per cent grass-forage operation in northern Michigan, he enquired whether the farm’s customers actually like the beef’s stronger flavour.

“No,” was his host’s answer, pointing to the fact that people buy their beef primarily as a health product.

Canada Beef research also highlights a domestic disconnect in ground meat and marbling.

“There is a tendency for consumers to indicate a visual preference for lower levels of marbling than they might prefer from an eating-quality point of view,” said Klassen.

“Likewise, the most popular type of ground beef in Canada (lean) is often lower in fat than a blinded taste preference would indicate.”

Back in the U.K, frozen beef is considered a lower-grade product. This stands in contrast to Canada, where frozen meat is a ubiquitous and widely accepted as separate from product quality.

Implementing lessons learned back in Scotland

Back in Moray, Gibson is sharing his findings with his local farming and butcher associations, while implementing changes on his own farm in pursuit of a more consistent, consumer-oriented product. This includes bringing in new genetics to speed up the tail end of finishing cattle, trying to drive energy requirements from the start, “and trying to back that up with data.” In the butcher shop, he’s also looking at different technologies to better age their beef.

Gibson’s final take-away after two years of travel and research — how much of a privilege it is to consider meat quality at all. For most people of the world, there is, in reality, little choice.

Gibson’s full report, “Enhanced Meat Eating Quality from 100 Per Cent Grass & Forage Systems”, is available on the Nuffield Farming Scholarship Trust’s website, and a presentation of his findings is available on the trust’s YouTube channel.

The post What makes good beef? Global study reveals surprising answers about meat quality appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

That’s according to a joint report from the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) and the University of Saskatchewan’s Global Institute for Food Security on risk in Canada’s agri-food system. The report provides results from the first phase of research the groups are gathering to help provide policy recommendations to solve issues in the agriculture sector. This first phase included a survey of more than 500 farmers, food processors, government personnel, and other agricultural stakeholders on what they’re most concerned about, and what issues should be given priority.

Already a problem

Respondents largely indicated policy, extreme weather, and trade problems were already a reality, and that such problems are perceived to be both chronic in nature and complex. As the report summary details, fewer than 15 per cent of respondents “have confidence in government to solve any of the three, while fewer than 22 per cent say they have confidence in private sector solutions. Thus, the uphill battle will evidently persist for years to come.”

Tyler McCann, CAPI’s managing director, says the survey informing the report gathered perspectives from a good cross-section of farmers, civil society, government and other industry professionals. While the top identified concerns were not themselves a surprise, McCann was intrigued by what appears to be widespread resignation.

“We see policy, extreme weather, and trade as already being a problem, even a difficult or extreme problem, but we seem to think there’s little we can do about it,” he says. “It’s hard to wrap your mind around that. It’s one thing to say were not sure what we’re gong to do about extreme weather…but on the domestic policy front, that is within our control.”

McCann adds that while people generally think Canada is ahead of many other countries on social and environmental issues, only about 30 per cent think we are ahead economically. This suggests governments must re-focus some attention to economics, and better communicate with the agricultural industry about Canada’s economic position.

Optimism and priorities

Despite some resignation, 62 per cent of respondents expressed general optimism about the direction of Canadian agriculture. The report describes that optimism stems in part from the perspective that Canada is well-positioned, or at least fairly well-positioned, to “take advantage of burgeoning markets.”

By comparison, 21 per cent of respondents said they are pessimistic. Higher levels of pessimism were identified in respondents from rural or remote areas, suggesting farmers themselves comprised much of the category.

Another take-away for McCann, however, was overlap between what respondents thought governments and private industry should focus on to improve the sector.

While research and development were rated as a higher priority for the private sector, for example, it was still identified as a priority for government. This, says McCann highlights the opportunity for greater investment and cooperation across the industry – something which is much needed, given the sector’s general habit of operating in silos. The report itself says “the preference for a focus on innovation and productivity is evident across different facets of the agriculture sector. Notably, farmers show the least preference for any one aspect of this, suggesting a wide diversity of opinion.”

Moving forward, McCann says both his organization and Canadian the Global Institute for Food Security intend to produce a “second-phase” report further analyzing these issues, and recommending “what to do about it.”

“The core belief is we need a more ambitious strategic policy solution in this country,” says McCann. “We want to develop how we take these concerns, and bring them to life. We see the risks the sector faces as a space where we need more focused action, and need to work together more.”

Key Findings from the report:

• Asked what the top priorities should be for government, trade policy, climate change adaptation, and research and development take the first three spots. For the private sector, research and development, productivity growth, and business investment are the top three.
• The markets most chosen as “massive” opportunities for the agriculture sector are India (41 per cent) and the rest of Asia outside of China and India (41 per cent). One-in-five say both the domestic Canadian market (21 per cent) and the US/Mexico (20 per cent) are massive opportunities.
• Beyond the top three threats to the sector already mentioned, input affordability, farm income and debt, human resources, and climate change were all chosen by at least one-in-three survey participants, making up a secondary tier of risks.
• Opinions among famers, government workers, civil society, and others in the farming industry diverge in some areas. While no group is overly confident that solutions to the top three challenges will be easily discovered, those in government are more confident in government problem solving and less confident in the private sector.

The post Report highlights optimism, resignation in agriculture sector appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Instead of cash, the attackers demanded the hog business owners publicly admit to what they alleged to be livestock mistreatment.

The occurrence was unique and alarming, says Ali Dehghantanha, Canada research chair in cybersecurity and threat intelligence at the University of Guelph’s Cyber Science Lab.

The lab offers a for-fee support service for those managing cyberattacks and cybersecurity.

NEW AUDIO SERIES: Cyber-Savvy Farmer

While the number of cybersecurity incidents across Ontario’s agriculture industry has been rapidly increasing overall, he says the cashless ransomware attack against the family hog business — an incident he and his colleagues helped the family resolve — highlights what could become a wider trend in the tactics used by special interest actors.

Why it matters: Ransomware and other criminal cyber activities usually come with demands for payment. Malicious actors focused on disrupting food production rather than money pose another, potentially harder-to-solve threat.

According to Dehghantanha, the attack perpetrators claimed to have a variety of incriminating evidence showing animal abuse on the farm. This included camera footage taken from what the perpetrators claimed was a now-compromised farm surveillance system. The attacker’s prerequisite for releasing their hold on the farm’s network was a public statement, from the business owners, admitting to animal abuse.

In Dehghantanha’s view, this would have been financially devastating for the business.

In reality, no such footage existed. Indeed, claims of comprised cameras were false. Barring the demand for self-incrimination, the attack proved to be a standard, easily manageable ransomware attack.

“This was the first time working in this specific industry we have seen ransomware not asking for money. That would make our job much more difficult as we are dealing with adversaries whose motivation is not money,” Dehghantanha says, adding the transfer of cash is often the riskiest part for those committing ransomware attacks, because the movement of funds can be tracked.

“Prior to this we were not concerned with these small family food businesses…There was not a playbook for these kinds of situations.”

More accessible ransomware

Dehghantanha says his lab has been engaged with 20 cybersecurity issues reported from southern Ontario in the first half of 2023 alone — up from a mere handful in the entirety of 2019. Awareness of cyber risk has likely played a role in higher reporting, but it’s also getting easier for bad actors to acquire harmful attack tools like ransomware.

Simultaneously, the agriculture and food sector are underprepared for such threats. Dehghantanha considers agriculture and food to lag other sectors, notably energy and health, by approximately five years. Remedying the problem would begin by establishing a committee or another body of industry representatives, technology experts, and others to design cybersecurity standards “rooted in the reality of the industry.”

“We must identify steps for farmers and businesses that can be gradually achieved to get to the same level. This has happened in energy and health sector so there’s no reason it can’t happen in agriculture sector,” says Dehghantanha.

“We need to identify a body responsible for receiving these standard reports from farmers trying to evaluate them and give feedback and work with them…If a farmer knows they are level two, level three, or whatever level they are, it would make it much easier for them to understand and improve.”

Awareness and practice

Stakeholders in the agriculture sector, such as Ontario Pork, say they are raising awareness about the ever-growing need for better cybersecurity.

In an email statement received July 12, Ken Ovington, general manager for Ontario Pork, says the commodity group “routinely meets with cybersecurity experts and researchers to gather knowledge that can be used to create awareness and provide informational tools that are valuable to pork producers and the provincial pork industry.

“These types of cyberattacks are undeniably on the rise. As technology usage increases, so does the methods and sophistication of cyber criminals so it’s crucial that producers, agricultural organizations and government continue to prioritize cybersecurity measures, stay vigilant, and collaborate to prevent future cyberattacks,” says Ovington.

Strategies used to prevent issues within the organization itself were listed as well, including cybersecurity training for employees. No comment on specific incidents, such as the ransomware attack on the family hog operation, was provided.

Dehghantanha himself encourages greater proactivity. While establishing standards would help the agriculture sector improve overall security – and, potentially, bring spinoff benefits like lower insurance rates for higher cybersecurity scores – he stresses individuals and organizations need to pay attention to the threat posed by cyber criminals focused on industry disruption over money.

“We don’t need to wait for a standard to work on awareness. If you have livestock, you could be on a target list.”

— Matt McIntosh is a southwestern Ontario freelance writer. This article previously appeared at Farmtario.com.

The post Activists target Ontario hog farm with ransomware appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Why it matters: OSCIA says cost-sharing will help farmers know how severe their deoxynivalenol (DON) issues are, and how to market their grain. However, the program applies to DON testing only.

The program is a targeted initiative under the federal government’s Canadian Agriculture Partnership (CAP) – a five-year, $3 billion joint investment from the federal government and provinces. As the administrators of the program, Barb Caswell, protection and assurance coordinator for OSCIA, says, three areas are covered:

• Testing at a lab or elevator;
• Purchasing test kits for DON; and
• Purchasing equipment for testing on-farm.

How it works: The program operates at 50 per cent cost share up to a maximum of $2,500 per farm business location (meaning every farm with a unique Premises Identification Number). To qualify, producers must identify at least one load – regardless of how many total loads there are – of corn with DON levels above five parts per million.

Caswell said this threshold was set to reflect Agricorp’s crop insurance numbers, in part because the levels accepted at each elevator can differ based on end-buyer stipulations.

The program is specifically focused on DON and not mycotoxins more generally, she added. For this reason, a $25 funding cap for elevator testing costs and the purchasing of individual test kits applies.

Most elevators perform a free test before accepting grain. In some cases, though, she says a cost can apply – up to $100 at the high end, thereabouts – if it looks at more than just DON levels. Similarly, individual DON test kits range from about $25 to $35, though can be more expensive if the scope is similarly more expansive.

For the same reason, a cap of $2,500 also applies to those wishing to take the more expensive route of buying full testing equipment.

“On-farm test equipment also varies […] it can run anything from $4,000 to $9,000 or more,” Caswell said. Farmers will then also need to purchase the necessary “consumables,” she added, such as test strips.

Removing (some) guesswork

Ben Rosser, corn specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, says the program is a good thing from a management perspective because it reduces the barriers associated with testing.

Performing more tests in a more cost-effective way, he says, allows producers to get a handle on otherwise unexpected variability. This is particularly significant given on-farm DON tests can be used to measure infection in both stored and newly-harvested grain – as well as in corn still standing in the field.

While options for marketing corn with high DON levels are limited, Caswell reiterated the cost-share program is part of a wider commitment under CAP to address DON issues. Other areas of support announced include research into the processing and marketing of DON-infected corn, as well as strategies to reduce the impact and frequency of the toxin.

“Farmers need to know what the levels are in order to try and market the product. The funding program is that first step […] it doesn’t help much after that,” Caswell said.

According to OSCIA, all costs must have been incurred after Oct. 12 this year to qualify. A close date for application submission will be announced at a later time. Producers can get more details and applications online or contact OSCIA by email.

— Matt McIntosh is a farm writer based between Essex County and Chatham-Kent, Ont. and works with his parents on a sixth-generation family farm.

The post How Ontario’s new DON testing cost-share program works appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.