Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Grasses, Pastures & Hay
Grass-fed -- a new post
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="edrsimms" data-source="post: 691588" data-attributes="member: 10970"><p>We can begin with the cattle drives in the 1880's – which were all organic, all natural and all grass-fed. </p><p></p><p>When did the mass production of beef come available you might ask? </p><p>Was it in 1890? NO</p><p>Was it 1900? NO</p><p>Was it 1910? NO</p><p>Was it 1920? NO</p><p>Was it 1930? NO</p><p>Was it 1940? NO</p><p>Was it 1950? NO</p><p>Was it 1960? Close, But NO</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>Grandfather thought corn was an unnecessary input he didn't need that just ate into his already tight profits—he was right.</p><p></p><p>The Differences in the </p><p>Traditional Rancher (Grass-fed) and the Non-traditional Rancher (Grain-fed)</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>If you omit any step in this formula [1-4] you cannot prevail in the traditional ranching operation. </p><p>One other very important aspect in the traditional ranching operation (grass-fed) is choice of cattle type. </p><p>*****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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>To wrap this up, here are a few proven benefits of Traditional Ranching (Grass-fed Beef):</p><p>Grass-fed beef is better for human health than grain-fed beef in ten different ways, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date. </p><p></p><p>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</p><p>1. Lower in total fat </p><p>2. Higher in beta-carotene </p><p>3. Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) </p><p>4. Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavin </p><p>5. Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium </p><p>6. Higher in total omega-3s </p><p>7. A healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (1.65 vs 4.84) </p><p>8. Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11), a potential cancer fighter </p><p>9. Higher in vaccenic acid (which can be transformed into CLA) </p><p>10. Lower in the saturated fats linked with heart disease </p><p>Other benefits include:</p><p>11. Health and well-being of the animals in the traditional ranching operations</p><p>12. Humane slaughter </p><p>13. Benefits to the environment with better waste management</p><p>14. When compared to land used for grain, land used in well managed pasture had:</p><p>a. 3% greater soil stability </p><p>b. Substantially more organic matter </p><p>c. Less nitrate pollution of groundwater </p><p>d. Improved stream quality </p><p>e. better habitat for grassland birds and other wildlife </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Now for the non-traditional rancher (Grain-fed producer). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>Here they are again:</p><p>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]</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Some by-products of the non-traditional rancher:</p><p>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. </p><p>****** Also the type of processing choice of the non-traditional ranchers (Wet-Aging in a vapor lock bag provides a consistent product called Bland)</p><p>But what does a feedlot diet do to the health and well-being of the animals: </p><p>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."</p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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."</p><p>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.</p><p>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..." </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>For the Non-traditional rancher: </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> 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. </p><p>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. </p><p>Read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemna" on the consequences for our health and environment of cheap corn dominating our food supply. Scary.</p><p>South America is the land of grass-fed. The butts and health of people reflect that. And so does the beef.</p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>Grass fed, all the way. Cows weren't born to eat corn. Nature tastes best the way it was designed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="edrsimms, post: 691588, member: 10970"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Grasses, Pastures & Hay
Grass-fed -- a new post
Top