Review of Meat Offerings
We regularly review meat products from U.S. grocery, stores, individual or coop farms and ranches, comparing their labels, claims, and marketing against real production practices and FAT Label. Below are reviews — each shows the label as presented, and our analysis of what it means.
Want Us To Review A Product? Call 406-551-5022
Here Is How FAT Scores Products
FAT Transparency Score (0–100)
Each FAT label category is scored from 0 (no disclosure or unverifiable claims) up to its maximum points. The overall FAT Transparency Score is the sum of all categories for a maximum of 100 points. Age at Slaughter is weighted slightly higher because it is critical to flavor, texture, and animal welfare.
| # | FAT Label Category | Max Points |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clear Animal Type | 7 |
| 2 | Breed | 7 |
| 3 | Origin (Country / Region) | 7 |
| 4 | Farm / Producer Identification | 7 |
| 5 | Processor (Plant & Location) | 7 |
| 6 | Feed | 7 |
| 7 | Welfare | 7 |
| 8 | Quality / Palatability | 7 |
| 9 | Age at Slaughter | 9 |
| 10 | Dietary Content (fat %, etc.) | 7 |
| 11 | Voluntary / Marketing Claims | 7 |
| 12 | Medicine / Vaccinations | 7 |
| 13 | Environmental Impact | 7 |
| 14 | FSIS Basics | 7 |
| Total Possible Score | 100 |
Well-documented U.S. origin with farm name and address on the label, plus processor plant ID. Strong disclosure on feed and welfare, including pasture access and “no growth hormones” with audit backup.
Age at slaughter is stated as 24–26 months, which supports both flavor and welfare. Environmental claims are modest and specific rather than marketing slogans.
| Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Animal Type / Breed | 13 / 14 |
| Origin & Farm ID | 14 / 14 |
| Processor Disclosure | 7 / 7 |
| Feed | 6 / 7 |
| Welfare | 6 / 7 |
| Quality / Palatability | 6 / 7 |
| Age at Slaughter | 9 / 9 |
| Dietary Content | 6 / 7 |
| Claims & Verification | 7 / 7 |
| Medicine / Vaccines | 6 / 7 |
| Environmental Impact | 6 / 7 |
| FSIS Basics | 6 / 7 |
Label identifies the product as “Angus” but does not list the specific farm or processor plant, only a broad region. Feed description is missing and age at slaughter is not disclosed.
Several voluntary claims (e.g., “no added hormones”) appear without clear verification or third-party backing, which limits the transparency score.
| Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Animal Type / Breed | 10 / 14 |
| Origin & Farm ID | 7 / 14 |
| Processor Disclosure | 4 / 7 |
| Feed | 3 / 7 |
| Welfare | 3 / 7 |
| Quality / Palatability | 5 / 7 |
| Age at Slaughter | 3 / 9 |
| Dietary Content | 6 / 7 |
| Claims & Verification | 5 / 7 |
| Medicine / Vaccines | 4 / 7 |
| Environmental Impact | 4 / 7 |
| FSIS Basics | 10 / 14 |
Berkshire Hams from Snake River Farms
(Animal protein analysis by the folks at Farm Animal Transparency, LLC)
FAT Scores
Flavor 8.4 – Excellent flavor: clearly above typical grocery-store ham.
Texture 9.1 – Exceptional texture: very tender and juicy with consistent handling.
Transparency 7.2 – Mixed transparency: brand is clear; farm-level and protocol details are partial.
Welfare 8.8 – Strong welfare practices (implied): heritage breed and handling suggest care, but specifics are limited on the package.
Value 6.5 – Mixed value: quality is high, but premium price is not fully matched by transparency.
Overall 7.9 – Good overall: excellent eating quality with room for improvement on farm and protocol disclosure.
Pros & Cons
Pros:
- Excellent Berkshire flavor and juiciness.
- Consistent texture and handling from batch to batch.
- Heritage breed clearly identified and marketed honestly.
Cons:
- Farm-level identity and location are not fully disclosed.
- Feed and medicine/vaccination protocols are not described on the package.