Grass-fed -- a new post

Help Support CattleToday:

edrsimms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
287
Reaction score
0
After reading some of the posts on the Grass-fed discussions I thought I would start a new post and try to put the bad information to rest once and for all. A lot of people seem to have a dislike for grass-fed /natural/organic producers and you have to wonder why?

Just the mere mention of Grass-fed and someone is immediately posting incorrect jargon like “Gourmet or Specialty Food”, as if it was a “NEW IDEA”. This assumption cannot be farther from the truth.
I do look forward to the replies to come, but if you haven’t done both grain-fed and grass- fed beef your replies will mean very little to those readers that have.

There are so many differences to discuss that it is really difficult to figure out where to begin. After some thought, I think a time line is in order, so that you youngsters (those under 50) will know where it all began.

The Grass Fed Era

1862-75
Change from hand power to horses characterizes the first American agricultural revolution
1868
Steam tractors are tried out
1874
Glidden barbed wire patented; fencing of rangeland ends era of unrestricted, open-range grazing
1880
Western Cattle Boom Begins
1881
Hybridized corn produced
1884-90
Horse-drawn combine used in Pacific coast wheat areas
1888
The first long haul shipment of a refrigerated freight car was made from California to New York
1890-99
Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer; 1,845,900 tons
1890s
Agriculture becomes increasingly mechanized and commercialized
1890
40-50 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with gang plow, seeder, harrow, binder, thresher, wagons, and horses; 35-40 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2 1/2 acres) of corn with 2-bottom gang plow, disk and peg-tooth harrow, and 2-row planter
1900-09
Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer 3,738,300 tons
1900-20
Commercial fertilizer use: 6,116,700 tons/year
Big open-geared gas tractors introduced in areas of extensive farming
Enclosed gears developed for tractor
Small prairie-type combine with auxiliary engine introduced
1920-29
Commercial fertilizer use: 6,845,800 tons/year
1920-40
Farm production gradually grows from expanded use of mechanized power
Commercial fertilizer use: 6,599,913 tons/year
1930s
All-purpose, rubber-tired tractor with complementary machinery popularized
1930
One farmer supplies, on average, 9.8 in the United States and abroad; 15-20 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2 1/2 acres) of corn with 2-bottom gang plow, 7-foot tandem disk, 4-section harrow, 2-row planters, cultivators, and pickers; 15-20 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with 3-bottom gang plow, tractor, 10-foot tandem disk, harrow, 12-foot combine, and trucks
Commercial fertilizer use: 13,590,466 tons/year
1940
One farmer supplies 10.7 persons (est.)
1941-45
1945-70
Change from horses to tractors and increasing technological practices characterize the second American agricultural revolution; productivity per acre begins sharp rise
1945
10-14 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2 acres) of corn with tractor, 3-bottom plow, 10-foot tandem disk, 4-section harrow, 4-row planters and cultivators, and 2-row picker; 42 labor-hours required to produce 100 pounds (2/5 acre) of lint cotton with 2 mules, 1-row plow, 1-row cultivator, hand hoe, and hand pick
1950-59
Commercial fertilizer use: 22,340,666 tons/year
1950
One farmer supplies 15.5 persons (est.)
1953
“Great Cattle Bust” begins, brought on by drought, grasshoppers and fire. Continues until 1957.
1954
************Number of tractors on farms exceeds the number horses and mules for the first time
1955
6 1/2 labor-hours required to produce 100 pounds (4 acres) of wheat with tractor, 10- foot plow, 12-foot row weeder, harrow, 14-foot drill, self-propelled combine and trucks.
Late 1950s
Anhydrous ammonia increasingly used as cheap source of nitrogen, boosting yields
1960-69
Commercial fertilizer use: 32,373,713 tons/year




Mass Production of Grain-fed Beef Begins (1967)

1960’s

One farmer supplies 25.8 persons (est.)
1965
5 labor-hours required to produce 100 pounds (1/5 acre) of lint cotton with tractor, 2-row stalk cutter, 14-foot disk, 4-row bedder, planter, cultivator, and 2-row harvester
5 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with tractor, 12- foot plow, 14-foot drill, 14-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks.
1967
Boxed beef is introduced providing more conveniently sized cuts for retailers and butchers
1960-69
Commercial fertilizer use: 32,373,713 tons/year
1970-79
Commercial fertilizer use: 43,643,700 tons/year
1970s
No-tillage agriculture popularized
1970
One farmer supplies 47.7 persons (est.)
1970
Earth Day is celebrated for the first time
1971
The Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association is organized
1973
Fifty farmers organize California Certified Organic Farmers
1975
2-3 labor-hours required to produce 100 pounds (1/5 acre) of lint cotton with tractor, 2-row stalk cutter, 20-foot disk, 4-row bedder and planter, 4-row cultivator with herbicide applicator, and 2-row harvester
3-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with tractor, 30-foot sweep disk, 27-foot drill, 22-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks; 3-1/3 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (1 1/8 acres) of corn with tractor, 5-bottom plow, 20-foot tandem disk, planter, 20-foot herbicide applicator, 12-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks
1980-89
Commercial fertilizer use: 47,411,166 tons/year
1980s
More farmers use no-till or low-till methods to curb erosion
1980
One farmer supplies 75.7 persons (est.)
1987
1-1/2 to 2 labor-hours required to produce 100 pounds (1/5 acre) of lint cotton with tractor, 4-row stalk cutter, 20-foot disk, 6-row bedder and planter, 6-row cultivator with herbicide applicator, and 4-row harvester
3 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with tractor, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, 25-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks; 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (1 1/8 acres) of corn with tractor, 5-bottom plow, 20-foot tandem disk, planter, 20-foot herbicide applicator, 12-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks
1989
After several slow years, the sale of farm equipment rebounds; more farmers begin to use low-input sustainable agriculture (LISA) techniques to reduce chemical applications
1990
One farmer supplies 100 persons (est.)
1990s to Present
Information technology and precision techniques increasingly used in agriculture
1994
Farmers begin using satellite technology to track and plan their farming practices. The user of conservation tillage methods, which leave crop residues in the field to combat erosion, continues to rise. FDA grants first approval for a whole food produced through biotechnology, the FLAVRSAVR™ tomato. Farm Bureau celebrates its 75th anniversary. U.S. Congress approves General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), helping liberalize world trade
1997
The first weed and insect—resistant biotech crops-soybeans and cotton—are available commercially
2000
USDA unveils organic standards and official organic seal

Since the term grass-fed seems to get most grain-fed enthusiasts down, I think we can possibly re-name those producers that are grass-fed to “Traditional Ranchers” and Grain-fed producers to Non-traditional Ranchers or Johnny Come-lately, whichever you prefer.
 
OP
E

edrsimms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
287
Reaction score
0
We can begin with the cattle drives in the 1880’s – which were all organic, all natural and all grass-fed.

When did the mass production of beef come available you might ask?
Was it in 1890? NO
Was it 1900? NO
Was it 1910? NO
Was it 1920? NO
Was it 1930? NO
Was it 1940? NO
Was it 1950? NO
Was it 1960? Close, But NO

In fact, mass production of beef, as most of you know it, wasn’t readily available until the use of improved mechanized agriculture, the use of commercial fertilizer and herbicides were vastly improving grain yields on farms in the mid-1960’s.
Boxed Beef was readily available in 1967, at which time confinement operations of Pork, Poultry and Beef were established to consume the surplus of corn produced by the world’s best farmers (Those in the USA).

I think we can finally put to rest that absurd notion that grass-fed beef producers are a “New” or Specialty Item”, when in fact the Grain-fed producer is the NEW BOY ON THE BLOCK.
Grandfather thought corn was an unnecessary input he didn’t need that just ate into his already tight profits—he was right.

The Differences in the
Traditional Rancher (Grass-fed) and the Non-traditional Rancher (Grain-fed)

The traditional rancher, like my grandfather and I, had to maintain a highly fertile soil base so that our forages would thrive and our cattle would prosper. We are grass managers because our main staple is forage and NOT Grain. We maintained good soil fertility, which is the precursor to all things in the traditional ranching operation.

Great soil fertility [1] has brought us good forage, and that good forage [2] has provided the health and nutritional base [3] for our cattle, which drives reproductive performance [4] and allows us the opportunity to be in the cattle business, since 1833.
If you omit any step in this formula [1-4] you cannot prevail in the traditional ranching operation.
One other very important aspect in the traditional ranching operation (grass-fed) is choice of cattle type.
*****Bottom line is you have to match the type of cattle you raise with your available forage base. If you don’t, you will lose, period. Example: You cannot put FB Fleck Simmental cow’s, that weigh 1800 lbs, on native buffalo grass in Lufkin, TX and survive in this business (this is a trick and we will see how many get it, just for fun).

Another huge difference over the non-traditional rancher is that since we are gate to plate, we are held responsible for what we produce and our product is better for it.

With the advent of electronic ID the non-traditional ranchers will, for the very first time in their existence, be held responsible for what they produce. Your time is coming soon and I see some big dispersal sales coming for all those who cannot commit to EID.

To wrap this up, here are a few proven benefits of Traditional Ranching (Grass-fed Beef):
Grass-fed beef is better for human health than grain-fed beef in ten different ways, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date.

The 2009 study was a joint effort between the USDA and researchers at Clemson University in South Carolina. Compared with grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef was
1. Lower in total fat
2. Higher in beta-carotene
3. Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)
4. Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavin
5. Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium
6. Higher in total omega-3s
7. A healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (1.65 vs 4.84)
8. Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11), a potential cancer fighter
9. Higher in vaccenic acid (which can be transformed into CLA)
10. Lower in the saturated fats linked with heart disease
Other benefits include:
11. Health and well-being of the animals in the traditional ranching operations
12. Humane slaughter
13. Benefits to the environment with better waste management
14. When compared to land used for grain, land used in well managed pasture had:
a. 3% greater soil stability
b. Substantially more organic matter
c. Less nitrate pollution of groundwater
d. Improved stream quality
e. better habitat for grassland birds and other wildlife
15. Processing the meat by DRY-AGING is better for tenderness and palatability. Again this is the traditional way to process beef found in traditional ranching.

Now for the non-traditional rancher (Grain-fed producer).

The non-traditional rancher doesn’t really care too much about their forage base since their main staple is Grain and not forage. If their cattle don’t prosper on a limited forage base the ole feed bucket is never too far out of reach. It is sad really as I think it is a poor substitution for good forage management. Usually the grain enthusiast has omitted one of the 4 mainstays in traditional ranching.
Here they are again:
Great soil fertility [1] good forage [2] a good health and nutritional base [3] reproductive performance [4] cattle type based on forage availability and not a feed bucket [5]

Choice of cattle type is extended to all sorts of interesting breeds in the non-traditional ranching operation. Using my example above of Fleck Simmental on buffalo grass in Lufkin, TX; this scenario would definitely include a mix mill—forget the feed bucket.

The non-traditional ranchers are slaves to the stocker guy, the feedlot guy and the packer; and are accustomed to being thrown under the bus on a yearly basis. They are not overly concerned with quality pounds because they are only concerned with the units they are selling, which are quantity pounds of live weight and not quality pounds of carcass weight. Some Meat Science would be beneficial here.

Again, with the advent of electronic ID the non-traditional ranchers will, for the very first time in their existence, be held responsible for what they produce.

Some by-products of the non-traditional rancher:
Consumers are beginning to realize that taking ruminants off their natural diet of pasture and fattening them on grain or other feedstuff diminishes the nutritional value of the meat.
****** Also the type of processing choice of the non-traditional ranchers (Wet-Aging in a vapor lock bag provides a consistent product called Bland)
But what does a feedlot diet do to the health and well-being of the animals:
1) The first negative consequence of a feedlot diet is a condition called "acidosis." During the normal digestive process, bacteria in the rumen of cattle, bison, or sheep produce a variety of acids. When animals are kept on pasture, they produce copious amounts of saliva that neutralize the acidity. A feedlot diet is low in roughage, so the animals do not ruminate as long nor produce as much saliva. The net result is "acid indigestion."
2) Over time, acidosis can lead to a condition called "rumenitis," which is an inflammation of the wall of the rumen. The inflammation is caused by too much acid and too little roughage. Eventually, the wall of the rumen becomes ulcerated and no longer absorbs nutrients as efficiently.
3) Liver abscesses are a direct consequence of rumenitis. As the rumen wall becomes ulcerated, bacteria are able to pass through the walls and enter the bloodstream. Ultimately, the bacteria are transported to the liver where they cause abscesses. From 15 to 30 percent of feedlot cattle have liver abscesses.
4) Bloat is a fourth consequence of a feedlot diet. All ruminants produce gas as a by-product of digestion. When they are on pasture, they belch up the gas without any difficulty. When they are switched to an artificial diet of grain, the gasses can become trapped by a dense mat of foam. In serious cases of bloat, the rumen becomes so distended with gas that the animal is unable to breathe and dies from asphyxiation.
5) Feedlot polio is yet another direct consequence of switching animals from pasture to grain. When the rumen becomes too acidic, an enzyme called "thiaminase" is produced which destroys thiamin or vitamin B-1. The lack of vitamin B-1 starves the brain of energy and creates paralysis. Cattle that are suffering from feedlot polio are referred to as "brainers."
6) Stripped of all living matter, feedlots can become a mud bath in wet weather and a dust bowl in dry weather. When it's dusty, the cattle are at risk for "dust pneumonia," according to USDA-ARS researcher Julie Morrow-Tesch, PhD from Texas Tech University who studies the behavior and physiology of feedlot cattle. She reports that "The level of dust on feedlots can be high, which springs the cattle's immune system into action and keeps it running on a constant basis." She has found that many of the respiratory deaths in feedlot cattle can be attributed to dust pneumonia.
a. Feedlot Magazine, a monthly periodical for the cattle industry, offers a candid portrayal of animal welfare as seen from the point of view of the feedlot manager. "Subacute acidosis" is a condition that comes from feeding ruminants an excessive amount of grain, i.e., the amount given to most cattle being raised in feedlots. Animals with this condition are plagued with diarrhea, go off their feed, pant, salivate excessively, kick at their bellies, and eat dirt. But according to the industry, this is a normal and expected situation. "Every animal in the feedlot will experience subacute acidosis at least once during the feeding period," the article notes. It then goes on to reassure readers that this is "an important natural function in adapting to high-grain finishing rations..."
I beg to differ. There is nothing "natural" about subacute acidosis. It's a chronic belly ache brought about by switching animals from their natural diet of pasture to an artificial, high-grain concentrate.

For the Non-traditional rancher:

With the current ethanol-driven increase in corn prices, there have been some articles in the industry publications about putting more weight on beef using grass. The economies of grass vs. corn are tipping toward grass because feedlots are competing with ethanol plants for corn.
I lived in Argentina for 2 years and Brazil for 1, where beef is king and all of it is grass-fed. Hmmmm, how to best put this.
America is the land of corn fed. Corn fed processed-foods, corn fed cows, and corn fed people. This results in corn fed ( l ), hence the expression "She's a corn fed farm girl", which usually doesn't imply lean.
Read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemna" on the consequences for our health and environment of cheap corn dominating our food supply. Scary.
South America is the land of grass-fed. The butts and health of people reflect that. And so does the beef.
When I lived in Buenos Aires, I ate steak at least 4 times a week. The steak is cooked slowly, over wood coals, and is redder, leaner, and tastes cleaner than grain fed beef. Even on "Lomo", which is filet, the meat is tender, juicy, and lean. I could eat 3x the amount of beef that I would eat back home and feel fine...go out and party or do work.
When I returned home it was a kick in the gut. The first steak I had (a decent supermarket sirloin) was like eating beef soaked in water. It tasted bland and though the fat ribbon on the side was flavorful, the meat itself was tough. Even at great steakhouses, like G and Georgetti's in Chicago, I've yet to find something that equals what my cheap neighborhood place in Argentina could deliver.
Grass fed, all the way. Cows weren't born to eat corn. Nature tastes best the way it was designed.
 

talldog

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
749
Reaction score
0
Location
Willard, North Carolina
I'd say that ,without doubt, pretty well sums up my theory for years. According to your climate, nothing beats good grass and fresh water. I've gave up my hay fields and have spent my time educating myself on pasture maintenance and newer grasses. Proper overseeding in the winter and summer grasses are my focus. The market is changing and I hope to be on the train !!!! :tiphat:
 

john250

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
8,301
Reaction score
1
Location
Holton, IN elevation 768 ft
edrsimms":2suoxr5c said:
After reading some of the posts on the Grass-fed discussions I thought I would start a new post and try to put the bad information to rest once and for all. A lot of people seem to have a dislike for grass-fed /natural/organic producers and you have to wonder why?

Just the mere mention of Grass-fed and someone is immediately posting incorrect jargon like “Gourmet or Specialty Food”, as if it was a “NEW IDEA”. This assumption cannot be farther from the truth.
I do look forward to the replies to come, but if you haven’t done both grain-fed and grass- fed beef your replies will mean very little to those readers that have.

No one dislikes grass fed producers. They share an experience common to all cattlemen.

What I personally dislike, not to name anyone in particular, is a fellow who says his beef is "6 times healthier" with no proof to back his claim. Then he proceeds to dismiss other producers as tools of the machine if they buy fertilizer or wet age their beef or commit other sins against the new order.
This sort of fellow will even claim that other producers are putting an unhealthy product out to the public.

That fellow has a right to his free speech, and he has a right to compete in the market and he has a product with merit to some consumers, but his negative approach is a sign of weakness. "My product is less unhealthy than yours" is not an appealing message to the consumer or to other producers.

That guy should not expect a lot of love from the people he views with contempt.

ed, people who can get $10/lb for beef which they produce from fresh air and sunshine are usually off vacationing in some exotic locale this time of year, shopping for ferrari's and buying versace for their wives/mistresses. But you have chosen to preach the gospel of grass fed to us less fortunate and misguided sinners. That's charitable of you. But you are a Jehovah's witness at the door, and even the Watchtower folks know when to "give it a rest". Geez, your posts are longer than the unibomber's manifesto and about as informative.

Have a nice day.
 

redfornow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
0
john250":a1mp7mzg said:
Geez, your posts are longer than the unibomber's manifesto and about as informative.


Now thats funny!!! I dont care who you are.... :lol2:
 
OP
E

edrsimms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
287
Reaction score
0
No one dislikes grass fed producers. They share an experience common to all cattlemen.

What I personally dislike, not to name anyone in particular, is a fellow who says his beef is "6 times healthier" with no proof to back his claim.
First of all re-read at least some of the post as it is quite evident you did not-- here it is in summary for you:
To wrap this up, here are a few proven benefits of Traditional Ranching (Grass-fed Beef):
Grass-fed beef is better for human health than grain-fed beef in ten different ways, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date.

The 2009 study was a joint effort between the USDA and researchers at Clemson University in South Carolina. Compared with grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef was
1. Lower in total fat
2. Higher in beta-carotene
3. Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)
4. Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavin
5. Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium
6. Higher in total omega-3s
7. A healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (1.65 vs 4.84)
8. Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11), a potential cancer fighter
9. Higher in vaccenic acid (which can be transformed into CLA) etc......

there is your proof --I dont think you read it ........

Then he proceeds to dismiss other producers as tools of the machine if they buy fertilizer or wet age their beef or commit other sins against the new order.

Here again as you try to put off the idea of the traditional rancher (grass-fed beef Producer) as being the "New Order" when it is a fact that the Grain-fed industry you support that is the New Boy on the Block.

This sort of fellow will even claim that other producers are putting an unhealthy product out to the public.
Your Grain fed product is not a healthy product --just read the 2009 study again

That fellow has a right to his free speech, and he has a right to compete in the market and he has a product with merit to some consumers, but his negative approach is a sign of weakness. "My product is less unhealthy than yours" is not an appealing message to the consumer or to other producers.

It is not a negative approach it is the kind of approach that should get you thinking about leaving the darkness of non-traditional ranching and come to the light of Traditional ranching and providing the consumer with a healthier product, which includes your own family. You are a slave to the stocker the feeder and the packer that has been throwing you under the bus for over 40 years
 

SRBeef

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
2,931
Reaction score
1
Location
SW Wisconsin
edr - Thank you for taking the time to post the extensive material above. You have an opinion and are passionate about it. That is good. The world needs many people with passion.

As in most things in life however, there is more than one way to raise beef.

While I share some of your viewpoints, I do remember having some just awful beef in the UK (England) that was definitely 100% grassfed. You did not need a label or sign on the door or menu to tell it was grass fed.

I have also been in an "American Steakhouse" in Germany where folks CHOSE to go have some guaranteed American corn-fed beef. You also did not need to look at the sign to tell this was NOT grass finished beef.

One of my sons has been in Argentina and reports the beef there and the cooking of the beef there was also very good. Beef in Argentina forms a much larger percent of folks diet than in many other countries.

Personally I think there is a middle ground between 100% grassfed and 100% corn finished.

Corn is NOT evil! Sometimes we don't use it very well and our long time approach in the US of a cheap food policy (but reasonable quality) drives large industrial type vertically integrated processors to push a good thing too far in the name of maximizing profits.

I get very tired of hearing such as I heard on the radio recently an hour long rant that corn is the cause of global warming and that you can fight global warming by becoming a vegetarian...or something to that effect. Many concerned young folks, often several generations removed from ever having been on a farm, pick up this rubbish and think it is true.

I believe strongly in the free market system. And because of that system and passionate people like you, I believe things will eventually come back to a stable middle ground.

The truth and best way long term usually lies somewhere between the two extremes in many discussions like this.

Thank you for sharing your well thought out passion. However do not expect that many folks here will convert to your way of thinking. As you point out however the economics is leading us to more grass fed beef. The trick is to keep the flavor that folks like. While that can be done with pure grass only, it is not easy and definitely not automatic with grass as anyone who has had local beef in the UK can tell you.

Question for you: you talk about maintaining fertility and quality pastures. Does this mean you do use additional purchased fertilizers on your pastures?

I soil test and apply what the tests indicate is needed to raise good grass. I use legumes (mostly clover) as the source of most N but there are various trace elements which are often missing from the soils in many geographic areas.

Since most of us do not have the ability to graze virgin rangeland and instead graze ground that has been farmed or hayed in the past, I think we need to see what we have to work with and a soil test is a place to start. jmho.

Thanks again for your extensive post and passion.

Jim
 

talldog

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
749
Reaction score
0
Location
Willard, North Carolina
I have stated my views on grass-fed beef many times. I totally adhere to and believe everything edr says, but-----I also agree, there are OTHER views on this. If grain is your thing and it works for you-----God Bless !!!! :)
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
1
Location
South Georgia
john250":2namcv5w said:
edrsimms":2namcv5w said:
After reading some of the posts on the Grass-fed discussions I thought I would start a new post and try to put the bad information to rest once and for all. A lot of people seem to have a dislike for grass-fed /natural/organic producers and you have to wonder why?

Just the mere mention of Grass-fed and someone is immediately posting incorrect jargon like “Gourmet or Specialty Food”, as if it was a “NEW IDEA”. This assumption cannot be farther from the truth.
I do look forward to the replies to come, but if you haven’t done both grain-fed and grass- fed beef your replies will mean very little to those readers that have.

No one dislikes grass fed producers. They share an experience common to all cattlemen.

What I personally dislike, not to name anyone in particular, is a fellow who says his beef is "6 times healthier" with no proof to back his claim. Then he proceeds to dismiss other producers as tools of the machine if they buy fertilizer or wet age their beef or commit other sins against the new order.
This sort of fellow will even claim that other producers are putting an unhealthy product out to the public.

That fellow has a right to his free speech, and he has a right to compete in the market and he has a product with merit to some consumers, but his negative approach is a sign of weakness. "My product is less unhealthy than yours" is not an appealing message to the consumer or to other producers.

That guy should not expect a lot of love from the people he views with contempt.

ed, people who can get $10/lb for beef which they produce from fresh air and sunshine are usually off vacationing in some exotic locale this time of year, shopping for ferrari's and buying versace for their wives/mistresses. But you have chosen to preach the gospel of grass fed to us less fortunate and misguided sinners. That's charitable of you. But you are a Jehovah's witness at the door, and even the Watchtower folks know when to "give it a rest". Geez, your posts are longer than the unibomber's manifesto and about as informative.

Have a nice day.

Thanks John for a wonderful post. I have had to deal with absolutists and extremists on several occassions and it seems they are similar no matter the issue. I have found that many times these people mean well but don't fully understand the facts. More times than not, their strong opinions are merely an attempt to convince themselves while other times their strong opinions and negative comments about other products is just an attempt to make up for an inferior product. Its been my experience that a quality product will sale without negative advertisment. If one must resort to this type marketing it tells me either they are lacking in character or have a very poor product or both. Personally, if I was getting $10/pound from my customers I'd be keeping my trap shut cause I surely wouldn't want the competition and I'd be quietly laughing all the way to the bank. But that's just me.
 

mnmtranching

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
5,061
Reaction score
1
Location
MN
I've had lots of grass/hay fed beef. Several head per year are slaughtered. I get $3 a pound packaged and frozen. A good price I think for what I have into it. I have the critter boned and ground, sometimes I have some of the better cuts cubed or tenderized. My customers keep coming back for the burger. For steaks and roasts these same people want the marbled corn fed beef that makes much better steaks and roast.
I think it's fine to have a market for grass fed. It has it's place. As far as high quality steaks, haven't had one.
 

talldog

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
749
Reaction score
0
Location
Willard, North Carolina
Different here----My prime cuts (loin) are in demand whereas I sell halves or whole---But I don't know where the 10.00 a # comes from----NOT I !!!!!!! :tiphat:
 

novatech

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
4,830
Reaction score
2
Location
Brenham, Texas
There are some people that really need to watch what they eat as they are more susceptible to to having health problems than others. For well over 60 years I have been eating just about anything despite any health issues I have been warned about. I am still in very good health. I have always believed that all the talk about the differences between grass fed and corn fed was a load of crap. This past year I have had the unfortunate opportunity to talk to the nutritional doctors at MD Anderson, in Houston. I am now totally convinced that there are people out there that must stick to the grass fed beef in order to stay healthy.
There is a need for grass fed beef. There is also a need for corn fed as the masses simply could not fed without it.
 

john250

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
8,301
Reaction score
1
Location
Holton, IN elevation 768 ft
All I want is some explanation of your very specific claim: "6 times healthier". You are providing a laundry list of benefits, but they don't add up to proof of the claim.
Being from Missouri, I would also like to see the grass fed steer which grades "high choice-low prime" at 14 months.
I see you are a disciple of Michael Pollan. Yes, I read "The Omnivores Dilemma". I read it with an open mind and I found a lot to agree with. But, I reject the notion that some all powerful corporate entity is poisoning people with food. People open their mouths and stuff in the food and gain weight. Maybe people should take some responsibility for their diet. Fruits and vegetables are widely available. If people eat two Big Macs (supersize the fries) per day instead of cooking up a big pot of vegetable soup, who is responsible for that?

Pollan mentions the hippie gardens in San Francisco as a high point for agriculture. (pun intended) I have big reservations about that, but enough acid could make a person believe anything. The establishment is corrupt, corporations are bad, but mind-altering drugs are good. Not sure I want those people regulating my food.

Note that the meals Pollan builds his book around are all consumed with friends in a convivial atmosphere, except for the McDonalds meal which he consumes in the car. Could a Big Mac and fries be better in some way if it was consumed with friends and a bottle of good wine? And conversely, if we consume a grass fed ribeye between two pieces of bread while driving down the freeway are we likely to avoid indigestion?

Your claims of health and well being for all if we just eat your product are way simplistic--over the top simplistic. I applaud your enthusiasm, but if you were Iowa Beef and you made such claims for a grass-fed product you would be hauled before Congress. You are just small enough to escape tough scrutiny of your claims.

My personal choice is my own corn fed beef, slaughtered locally and cooked to my preference. Shared with the people I love. My family lives a long time, for the most part, and that is how we eat. Vegetables are farm raised (we use pesticides) and fruit is purchased. I'm going to die eventually, and so are you. Apparently you will have 360 more years to enjoy life (72 yr life times 6 times healthier=432 yr) so I'll have to console myself with the taste of corn fed beef. :)

Why not give us poor, in the dark slaves some tips on how to raise a grass fed animal which grades high choice-low prime at 14 months and sells for $10/lb, instead of mocking us. You really need to be famous if you are doing this, and there are a lot of eager students here at CT.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
1
Location
South Georgia
Red Bull Breeder":1px79iwa said:
John 250 i think that last part of your post above is a invitation for edrsimms to tell us about the benifits of Simangus cattle.

Or one of his many mutations.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
30,765
Reaction score
269
Location
Heart of Texas
talldog":2aa6hqud said:
I have stated my views on grass-fed beef many times. I totally adhere to and believe everything edr says, but-----I also agree, there are OTHER views on this. If grain is your thing and it works for you-----God Bless !!!! :)

talldog, I also believe that most folks who do these so called "studies" or "research' as some call it ge the exact results from their "studies" as the folks want out of it that are funding the research of "study". It's the only way the get hired again to do another study down the road...so take all results with a grain or salt....or hire your own researchers to get the results you're wanting.
 

mnmtranching

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
5,061
Reaction score
1
Location
MN
For such a intelligent fellow :???: selling/killing super cattle :cry2:
Why not become the worlds first kazillionarie and sell bulls and breeding stock. :D :cowboy:
 

brandonm_13

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
632
Reaction score
3
Location
Tennessee
Well, here's my stance on all of this.

1. I have had great CHOICE grassfed Ribeye steaks. I have also had bad grassfed meat.
2. I have had great grainfed steaks, and some that I've thrown out to the dogs.
3. It doesn't matter how fast you can grow beef, if your profit margins suffer for it. I'll take the extra 4 months and a higher profit marging over more growth and less profit any day.
4. I don't care what the scenario. If you put junk in, you're going to get junk out. It doesn't matter if it's oil in your car or grass/feed in your livestock.
5. You can grow just as much beef in a grassfed situation as in a grainfed situation. Usually you can grow more because of the intensive land management practices. Remember wherever that corn came from to finish cattle, that was land used for the specific purpose of cattle feed. That's land use that most people don't think counts toward production.
6. Do I think a cow that eats two pounds of corn a day is evil or unhealthy? No. Look at deer. They eat corn whenever they can. The difference is the feedlot.
7. The people pushing grassfed studies may have an agenda, but it is no more strong than the agendas pushed by the fertilizer salesman, the deworming companies, the vaccine companies, or anyone else. The only difference is we've started to believe one, and think the other must be crazy to say the opposite is true.
8. I'm going to raise what I want to raise and you are going to raise what you want to raise. No amount of evidence either way will sway us because our minds are made up.
 

Latest posts

Top