Just Say No To $1 Cheeseburgers

[backhoeboogie]

A friend sent me that article asking about the arithmetic. Anybody have any thoughts about the numbers he presents to make his argument? One thing I agree with 100% is that the hobby guy needs to learn what vertical markets are and become more engaged with how their "product" is represented in the marketplace. Hot Tails restaurant in New Roads sells $25 hamburgers all day long madefrom local grass fed beef. Most of the top dollar restaurants in New Orleans buy their beef from local grass fed hobby ranches. Finally, Whole Foods just cut a deal with Lasater Beefmasters for an all grass fed beef product in their stores...

$350 cost to keep a bull pro-rated over ONE cow stands out. Fuzzy math indeed. He needs 20 cows to get that bull keep cost down to $17.50

 

[djinwa]

This idea that we are not to criticize feedlots. The problem I have is that for the purpose of economics, it is considered acceptable to feed cattle in a way that makes them sick. And then it is acceptable that we can feed antibiotics to prevent illness just to save money.

I mean, if cattle could gain more weight and be raised cheaper if whacked with a 2x4 at regular intervals, would we all be doing that? And saying that the practice should not be criticized?

I was explaining to my brother how high carbohydrate diets make for acidic rumens, which ulcerates the rumen wall, allowing bacteria to get into the bloodstream, and go to the liver and cause liver abscesses. He then recalled when working in a feedlot, cutting open some cattle in their dead pile, and the livers were riddled with abscesses.

While researching this topic some years ago, I came across the article below. Industry leading feedlot veterinarians discussing liver abscesses, which is apparently for them and others simply an economic problem. We are supposed to accept 15% of the cattle being abscessed with the help of antibiotics.

And we are not to question this?

http://feedlotmagazine.com/archive/arch ... ticle.html

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Funny, I've never had any cases of liver abscesses in my steers, and I don't give any tylan? You think that those 15% that get them might just have livers that are more susceptible to liver abscesses? Since being not all feedlot animals get them, and even grazing animals (with a lower %) can get abscesses. Even the ones not being fed antibiotics aren't all getting them. So by means of deduction there must be another link to this than just what they are being fed.

 

[Redhides]

A couple observations:

Grassfed beef or more appropriately termed, Grass "Finished" beef (because that's the differentiator and process you're substituting for) is a desirable option and a direction over the long haul. The critical point is that it is a long term process. That doesn't mean we are equipped to or should we go overboard and try to convert the entire industry over night. It won't and can't happen. There is a reason that the cow/calf - stocker - feeder - packer dynamic evolved. It's the most efficient manner to produce beef and has allowed for a much greater market for this premium product. The grass finishers and weaned calf sellers should applaud and laud one another and avoid an acrimonious relationship. It's good for the industry for there to be choice and a more developed market as it provides a price floor for both products.

I have raised and sold many grass finished steers and it has been some of the best and worst meat I've ever had. If you're not putting a minimum of 3 pounds per day on that animal, it's not grass finished, it's really just grain free beef. And some people aren't set up for it. As a basis you really need a mob/high density rotational system that takes advantage of winter grazing, summer annuals, and pastures full of a dozen or more grasses, legumes, and forbs. They shouldn't be walking far to have all they want AND NEED to marble out. Further there are certain breeds that seem to do better on an all grass diet, and they are almost all British Isles cattle. There are some exceptions. There are a lot of people selling "grass fed" beef that are basically marketing and unfinished product akin to glorified goat meat. And it's understandable that many have an experiences that the meat is tough and has a gamey taste. There are very few genetic sources that still have cattle that can hack it on and all grass diet.

 

[ChrisB]

This idea that we are not to criticize feedlots. The problem I have is that for the purpose of economics, it is considered acceptable to feed cattle in a way that makes them sick. And then it is acceptable that we can feed antibiotics to prevent illness just to save money.

I mean, if cattle could gain more weight and be raised cheaper if whacked with a 2x4 at regular intervals, would we all be doing that? And saying that the practice should not be criticized?

I was explaining to my brother how high carbohydrate diets make for acidic rumens, which ulcerates the rumen wall, allowing bacteria to get into the bloodstream, and go to the liver and cause liver abscesses. He then recalled when working in a feedlot, cutting open some cattle in their dead pile, and the livers were riddled with abscesses.

While researching this topic some years ago, I came across the article below. Industry leading feedlot veterinarians discussing liver abscesses, which is apparently for them and others simply an economic problem. We are supposed to accept 15% of the cattle being abscessed with the help of antibiotics.

And we are not to question this?

http://feedlotmagazine.com/archive/arch ... ticle.html

I don't have a problem questioning anything. The problem I have is that 99% of the people have never been to a feedyard and will believe a statement put out by PETA that cattle are overcrowded and standing knee deep in mud/manure and the need to be feed antibiotics in order to survive. I have been to quite a few feedyards and the cattle there are better cared for than 90% of the hobby farmers out there. It's not a secret that cattle will perform best when they are comfortable and feedyards to a great job of doing that. Sick cattle lose money, why would they feed them to make them sick?

 

[sim.-ang.king]

This idea that we are not to criticize feedlots. The problem I have is that for the purpose of economics, it is considered acceptable to feed cattle in a way that makes them sick. And then it is acceptable that we can feed antibiotics to prevent illness just to save money.

I mean, if cattle could gain more weight and be raised cheaper if whacked with a 2x4 at regular intervals, would we all be doing that? And saying that the practice should not be criticized?

I was explaining to my brother how high carbohydrate diets make for acidic rumens, which ulcerates the rumen wall, allowing bacteria to get into the bloodstream, and go to the liver and cause liver abscesses. He then recalled when working in a feedlot, cutting open some cattle in their dead pile, and the livers were riddled with abscesses.

While researching this topic some years ago, I came across the article below. Industry leading feedlot veterinarians discussing liver abscesses, which is apparently for them and others simply an economic problem. We are supposed to accept 15% of the cattle being abscessed with the help of antibiotics.

And we are not to question this?

http://feedlotmagazine.com/archive/arch ... ticle.html

I don't have a problem questioning anything. The problem I have is that 99% of the people have never been to a feedyard and will believe a statement put out by PETA that cattle are overcrowded and standing knee deep in mud/manure and the need to be feed antibiotics in order to survive. I have been to quite a few feedyards and the cattle there are better cared for than 90% of the hobby farmers out there. It's not a secret that cattle will perform best when they are comfortable and feedyards to a great job of doing that. Sick cattle lose money, why would they feed them to make them sick?

Because they are only worried about profit...since that makes a lot of logic. :lol2:

 

[Jogeephus]

Have you ever wondered why the same people who advocate the wonders of probiotics like Activia are so quick to criticize the use of the same in cattle and refer to it as feeding antibiotics?

According to the WHO, probiotics are defined as, "Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host".

However, the term "probiotic" implied that these products had a curative or therapeutic capacity. This is problematic in the U.S., claims such as decreased mortality, fewer sick days, or increased production cannot be made of any product unless the safety and efficacy of the product has been approved by government regulatory agencies. To overcome this requirement, the U.S. feed industry in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, has since accepted the more generic term of "direct-fed microbial" (DFM) to describe microbial-based feed additives. In addition, a list of accepted microorganisms for use in animal feeds was developed. In the U.S., DFM's may be sold without approval as long as the microorganism appears on the approved list and no claims of improved health or production are made.

Read these two articles and it might change your opinion on this idea that we feed antibiotics.

http://cattletoday.com/archive/2010/June/CT2242.php

http://www.preferredmeats.com/backburner_rumensin.htm

 

[cmf1]

I paid $26.00 ea for burgers once. In New York City at "Jekyll and Hydes". But it came with a floor show and my kids loved it. I doubt it was grass fed, but nobody asked, and it was allright but not great.
I love great burgers.
I do a fair amount of 3-5 day stays in different towns and search out good burgers. $8 on the low side to $15 on the high side. I prefer honest grass fed beef. That's not always what I get.
I went to grass fed to have more control over my costs and market.
I am not a greenie. I love toilet paper and hot showers and other things that are supposedly ruining the planet.
And I prefer the flavor and texture of my beef.
I don't believe that "natural" or "grass fed" can feed the masses.
Feedlot beef or "conventional" beef is a necessity.
This guy Pritchard, who wrote the article, presents conventional beef using words that paint a picture of greasy fire breathing machinery scooping up toxic beeves and hammering out radio-active desease riddled chain sawed meat.
It ain't near that bad.
It's marketing.
He paints the grass fed as sparkly blue skies with angels singing while smiling fat cattle line up to serve humanity and be harvested by fairies.
It ain't that good.
It's marketing.
Black hides taste better.
It's marketing.
He's selling a book.
Grassfeeders beware though. If peta or hsus ever get feedlots shutdown, guess who they're coming for next.
Careful who you get in bed with to promote your product.

 

[Jogeephus]

Grassfeeders beware though. If peta or hsus ever get feedlots shutdown, guess who they're coming for next.Careful who you get in bed with to promote your product.

Well said. Reminds me of another wise man.

"When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise."
― Sun Tzu

 

[DavisBeefmasters]

Reading this chain of posts reminds me of a few things...

1. Google and read up the 2010 Texas Agrilife Research Study on grain finished vs. grass finished beef -- the study finds that the grass finished beef is higher in saturated trans-fat; however, had no negative affects on humans... whereas, the grain finished beef promoted positive healthy affects in the subjects of the research study including a reduction in the "bad" cholesterol levels
a. Good study, limited subjects, but still a fact based research and report
b. Does this mean because I prefer grain-finished beef that I will bash grass-finished? Nope... it is a preference, if my customers want grass finished, they will get it,
if the customer wants me to find a purple cow with pink polka-dots because they like them better... well, I guess I'm going to have to find a way to do that

2. Antibiotics on grain-finished beef is not a requirement as a flat-out, broad brush, bold statement... our graining process takes about 90 to 100 days, we slowly work with the steers on building up the quantity of grain from 2 lbs/head up to 1% of their body weight... our steers are finished out up to 5 at a time, hang at 1200# at 16 months of age, no steroids, no antibiotics, and on hay and grain on a small 1/2 - 1 acre pen (which has grass and trees in it)

3. We sell directly to our customers... and also sell by auction to likely the feedlots for those calves that we don't have or do not anticipate receiving an order on

4. To each his own

 

[Redhides]

This is a good thread.

I think that it's important that good discussion and sound science carry the day. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change. I don't believe we can say for certain whether there will or won't be feedlots in a 100 years, or for that matter how much or little beef people will consume. I personally believe that empirical research is going to continue to reveal that red meat is not the villain it's been made out to be. Whatever the case may be lets all hope that agenda driven special interest groups stop steering public policy.

Cheers

 

[dieselbeef]

you just cant grow enough beef on grass to feed the masses...there isnt enough room. mass pollution compared to concentrated pollution.

the intensity of the feedlots is the only way to keep enough food in the chain..sad as it is i dont see how we could do without such

 

[backhoeboogie]

This is a good thread.

Cheers

You gotta be kidding. It was BS from the original post when he was charging $350 upkeep for the cow AND $350 upkeep for the bull to the steer. Each steer costs $700 just to produce? We all just lost our shirts and haven't paid property taxes, fuel, or fertilizer costs yet.

Great accounting for an IRS audit maybe. I don't think the IRS is that stupid tho.

 

[Redhides]

I agree with you that at this point it's far more efficient to finish cattle on grain because the infrastructure is there. Improved Corn & Soybean production practices are more streamlined, adopted, and understood than are grass production practices. One reason for this is the existing markets, energy availability, and other input parameters. These specific conditions have not always existed and may not always exist in the future. Then again they may. Another often overlooked factor is that crops are annuals and can be studied on a year to year basis. Grassland needs a 20 year observation window or more. If all the test plots do for grass is evaluate in one year, two year or even 5 year increments, we'll never have a good indication of what's possible, or better yet what is actually happening. With only a short term look.....more nitrogen and less weeds will always be the recommendation. When in fact it's a percentage of the solution in the long term. More dangerously the strict and exclusive observation of this tactic can provide distraction from what would really help a cattleman in the long run.

Very few cattleman view themselves as grass farmers, or certainly not enough do. Most cattle folks are growing fractions of the grass they could be. Whether that's because of tradition, convenience, etc... Many manage their operation, because they feel it best suits their particular purposes. And that's ok. But it never hurts to have a spirit of improvement.

There are a few truths that are beginning come into focus because of years and sufficient iterations.

Much of the earth's surface is mismanaged for one reason or another. We're only utilizing a fraction of what's available.....namely because this ground is widely held as being "unusable".

Large herds of continuously moving herbivores built the best farmland in America. They did this with no fertilizer or soil amendments other than what came out of their backside and hoof pressure. Mismanagement of the plow has cost America more farmland than any other factor. And that is in no way/shape/form to say that we should park tractors, hold hands, and have a world communal herd of 400 Million Cows, Sheep, goats, and alpacas. Not at all. Production Row Crops are a vital part of the solution. But they aren't THE solution. And to assume that the only way we are going to avoid world wide hunger is for grain farmers to get to 500 bushel corn is frighteningly short sighted, and at worse, it's categorically false.

Grass Finishers and Grain Finishers would do well to stop shooting at each other and understand their is a seat at the table for both. And they are both better off if the other is seated with them.

 

[Redhides]

It's a good thread backhoe because it brings about discussion for things that need to be talked about.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

I thought the annual burning of prairie grass is what created the most fertile ground in the world? At least that's what we were always taught here in the prairie state.

 

[dieselbeef]

well that and alotta b.s.

 

[Redhides]

Burning is certainly an improvement above overgrazing and no grazing. But nothing is as good as bombing the ground with hooves and crap and then letting it recover for 8 months. Burning does uncover the seedbed, but it doesn't fix the nutrients like hard grazing, soil stirring, and rest.

 

[backhoeboogie]

The drought was so bad a couple of years back cactus dried up and died. Prickly pear looked like curled up pieces of pink cardboard. If we were relying on native grasses the buffalo had, we'd be SOL because they still have not recovered.

 

[ga.prime]

I thought the annual burning of prairie grass is what created the most fertile ground in the world? At least that's what we were always taught here in the prairie state.

The grass here has burned a few hundred times and it's still sand.