Lowlines

[Brandonm2]

More people are doing it! It is the fastest growing part of the cattle industry. There are people in the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho that are feeding very little or no hay and they are much further North than you. Check out some of the articles on the stockman grassfarmer website. As to more land,,, there are ways to use winter annuals and other options to stretch out grazing.

Grassfed beef has plenty of room to grow. It's hardly a drop in the bucket of the beef industry today. But however you cut it, if you have 100 acres that could support ten cows, you can't run ten cows. You'll be feeding the cows, their current calf, and the last calf crop you weaned. If you can make up the difference, good for you.

If they're feeding winter annuals, they need equipment to plant and fertilize those annuals. So how much money are they saving in equipment costs?

And don't confuse grassfed with natural. They're not the same thing.

Well said Frankie and then there is the cost of the land itself. If you need 100 acres too support ten cows AND anther 100 acres to grass fatten the calf you have 200 acres x $1000/acre or $2000/acre or even $3000/acre. Even if they are clearing $300 a cow over all the cash costs that is still only 1.5%, .75%, or .5% return on your land investment.

 

[IL Rancher]

Grassfed cattle will pencil a lot better if you go to direct marketing but that is a whole other skill to develop and cultivate and a whole nother level of aggrivation that many are not going to be willing to deal with. I don't know what the magic number is for how much per pound you have to sell a grass steer at to make up for 1) interest 2) Loss of production by replacing 2 cows with 3 steers or whatever the ratio would be 3) all the other miscellaneous stuff but there is a number there... But there is a number there... As long as demand is there to support that price you can make it work..

 

[purecountry]

It's working just fine for us so far, but in all honesty, where some of you folks are at, paying $2-5000/acre for land makes any kind of sustainable profit seem impossible. There's pasture land here going for $1000/acre, but there's also plenty still trading under $300. We just bought 960 acres for $100/acre - family deal - but it's poor pasture land that we need to crossfence and intensively manage the grazing in order to improve the soil health.

The best part of our grass-based program for our family, is that on mornings like this where it's -12C with 50-60mph winds, blowing snow, and blizzard warnings all over the radio, I'm inside, my cows have bush shelter and rows of bale-grazing. My neighbours are all pulling tractors out right now, to spend the next 2-10 hours bedding, feeding, plowing, blah, blah, blah, which they have to do every day.

Nobody jump on me here, because of course this doesn't work for everyone. We can buy in hay around here to bale-graze fairly cheap, and we have alot of native grass that the cows grazed till Christmas. There are alot of factors that play into this equation, all of which we've argued on this board every which way from Sunday. What I'm saying is, don't say grass operations aren't sustainable or feasible, because they certainly can be, they just might not work for you.

 

[KMacGinley]

Frankie: Cell phones were a drop in the bucket of the phone market 20 years ago also. Before you make a blanket indictment of Grassfed, I would suggest that you do a little research. I also appreciate you pointing out to me that there is a difference between Natural and Grassfed..... since I am selling both types to people. As for planting costs, My neighbors are perfectly willing to custom plant anything I want for $15 per acre. A lot cheaper than owning the stuff myself.

 

[Frankie]

Frankie: Cell phones were a drop in the bucket of the phone market 20 years ago also. Before you make a blanket indictment of Grassfed, I would suggest that you do a little research. I also appreciate you pointing out to me that there is a difference between Natural and Grassfed..... since I am selling both types to people. As for planting costs, My neighbors are perfectly willing to custom plant anything I want for $15 per acre. A lot cheaper than owning the stuff myself.

Good point. Look at the prices of cell phones over the last 20 years. Down, down, down. They give them away if you'll sign a contract! Prices are related to demand and supply. As more people go into grassfed and natural beef, prices will drop as the supply goes up. With the price for land, producing beef won't get cheaper for the rancher as it has for cell phone manufacturers. A few years ago I heard a story on NPR about organic apple producers in Washington. So many producers had gone organic that their product was selling at the same price as conventionally raised raised apples but their expenses are higher.

I understand that your neighbors are willing to plant for you at a reasonable rate. Mine would be, too. So where's the savings on equipment by becoming a grassfed beef operaton? Grassfed or conventional, most of us can hire custom farm work. Or if we have equipment, lease ourselves out to do custom farmwork.

I'm not making a blanket indictment of grassfed. If you're making it work, good for you. But it's not a simple turn the cows out and let them eat grass.

 

[KMacGinley]

Yes, you just dump them out on grass. Don't think that anyone was saying that. Actually, I was challenging you to learn a little about something you don't seem to know much about. And you are stretching the cell phone anology a little ridiculously. Grassfed meats will never replace the commodity market totally, but for some people getting off the lock step with what ever the NCBA and the AAA says to do may just turn out to be rewarding.

 

[Frankie]

Yes, you just dump them out on grass. Don't think that anyone was saying that. Actually, I was challenging you to learn a little about something you don't seem to know much about. And you are stretching the cell phone anology a little ridiculously. Grassfed meats will never replace the commodity market totally, but for some people getting off the lock step with what ever the NCBA and the AAA says to do may just turn out to be rewarding.

Why do you now think the cell phone anology is wrong? It was your anology; I just agreed and followed it to the current status.

But what got my attention in your post was:

These grass feeding guys laugh their butts off at us for spending money on feed and equipment, while the ones that have their act together are getting well over $1.00 per lb live weight with no feed expense.

Now you say that instead of owning equipment (and there are tax advantages to owning equipment; there are opportunities to make money baling other peoples hay, planting other people's fields), you choose to pay someone to do it. So you do have feed expense.

As I said, if it works for you, great. And you might be surprised what I know about grassfed beef.

 

[BAGTIC]

"Why would you take a normal size cow, and have her produce LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING than she is capable of??"

It isn't about 'LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING" per cow. It is about 'per acre' or 'per ton of hay/feed'.

If the cows are smaller and more efficient feed converters the lower weight per cow may be offset by the greater number of cows that can be raised on he same resources.

The bottom line is pounds of beef per acre, not pounds of beef per broodcow.

 

[BAGTIC]

I've never understood how the small breeds (any of them) fit into the beef business, but someone must be making money with them.

They fill the same role as small chickens fill in the poultry business. All those chickens in the grocery store are not from the traditional 'big breeds' or chickens. They are selected for rate of growth and food conversion efficiency.

Tha is where the beef industry is behind the dairy, poultry, and pig business. The beef industry is still, for the most part, at the biggest is better stage. When comparing a lot of cattle we have too long assumed that the ones that are largest at any stage of growth (age?) are the most efficient.

If one steer if 10% heavier but consumed 20% more feed getting there is it really 'more efficient'. Also, the animals that are more efficient on grass may not be the most efficient on feedstuffs, and vice versa.

 

[Frankie]

I've never understood how the small breeds (any of them) fit into the beef business, but someone must be making money with them.

They fill the same role as small chickens fill in the poultry business. All those chickens in the grocery store are not from the traditional 'big breeds' or chickens. They are selected for rate of growth and food conversion efficiency.

Tha is where the beef industry is behind the dairy, poultry, and pig business. The beef industry is still, for the most part, at the biggest is better stage. When comparing a lot of cattle we have too long assumed that the ones that are largest at any stage of growth (age?) are the most efficient.

If one steer if 10% heavier but consumed 20% more feed getting there is it really 'more efficient'. Also, the animals that are more efficient on grass may not be the most efficient on feedstuffs, and vice versa.

I've been buying chickens for a lot of years. You can't find a three pound chicken any more. So I don't necessarily agree with you about "big breeds of chickens".

I think "efficiency" is something everyone has to work out in their own situation. The packers have always liked larger cattle because they could get more product from killing one animal.

Of course, if you're not selling to the packers....

 

[Brandonm2]

I don't want to be chicken little and I certainly don't want too pour gas on this debate but IF this trend continues we might ALL have to become grassfed hippies whether we want too or not...

I got this from the Angus people in the email...

"News Update
Jan. 11, 2006



Ethanol Production Threatening Livestock Industry, Food Supply

Think tanks and livestock producers alike are alarmed at the rate of growth of the ethanol industry and its effect on feed supplies for the meat industry.

Ron Plain, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, says that increases in corn costs have already added 25% to the cost of raising hogs to slaughter weight, from a projected $40 per hundredweight (cwt.) in early 2006, to an actual cost of about $50 per cwt. If corn continues to the $4.05 per bushel price level considered the break-even in ethanol production, the increased feed costs will add 31% to the cost of hog production.

Gene Gourley, an Iowa pork producer and swine nutritionist, testified on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council to the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday that ethanol producers are receiving huge subsidies of $1.53 per bushel of corn purchased and tax credits of $0.51 per gallon (gal.) of ethanol produced, resulting in runaway growth in ethanol production. "These incentives have the ethanol industry growing at an almost unbelievable pace," he said in his testimony. "New plants are springing up everywhere, and they're using a lot of corn."

Lester Brown, president of Washington think tank Earth Policy Institute (EPI), compiled figures concerning ethanol plant construction and planned construction, and says USDA projections of the amount of corn needed to feed the ethanol industry are far short of actual demand. By 2008, he says, automobiles will be eating as much corn as is in the food system, and that will endanger the global food supply. One 25-gal. tank of ethanol, he says, consumes an amount of corn that would directly or indirectly feed a person for a year.

Brown says that ethanol construction data available is lagging behind the real world, where plants are going into production on a weekly basis, with the rate accelerating. He counts 116 plants in production at year-end 2006, consuming 53 million tons of corn annually. He counts 79 more in various stages of construction, while the Renewable Fuels Association counts only 62, and 200 more on the drawing board.

So, while USDA projects consumption of 60 million tons of corn for ethanol during the 2008 harvest, EPI projects consumption of 139 million tons, more than double the USDA estimate.

According to Janet Larsen, director of research at EPI, corn growers may or may not make up the difference by planting more and more productive corn, but the inevitable result is higher food prices. "Increasing the subsidies for ethanol production, as the Democrats are suggesting, is completely uncalled for," she said. "Higher food prices could cause a consumer backlash against ethanol."

EPI suggests instead that fuel efficiency standards be increased to lower dependence on ethanol and that tax credits for ethanol production be reduced or eliminated.

— release provided by Meatingplace.com"

 

[BAGTIC]

"According to the International Miniature Cattle Breeders Society and Registry (IMCBSR), any bovine 3 years of age or older measuring 42 inches or under at its hips is a miniature;"

The IMCBSR is a private business, marketing scheme, devoted to creating and franchising "trademarked" 'new breeds' of its own design. As such it really has little to no relevance to the issue of miniatures.

Each breed association sets it own standards. Generally, any animal less than 48" will be considered a 'miniature' in most associations but there are a few that require smaller sizes, typically 42" but there is no universal rule.

Personally I have one 46" and one 47" Belted Galloway cows that are as heavy as commercial Angus cows 6-10 inches taller on the same pasture.

I too remember when Angus were stout little animals on sturdy little legs like fence posts. Many breeds were in earlier days. When I was a child we used to visit my grandparents who were caretakers of the original homeplace on the Turkey Track Ranch in north Texas. I believe that at the time it was the second largest ranch in the U.S. There were two animals kept at the homeplace that my grandparents were responsible for caring for. One was an old swaybacked horse, a family pet, named Blackie. The other was a Grand Champion Hereford bull name Dominick. I forget which number, there were many. I believe that at the time he was the highest priced Hereford in the country. He was short, stout, deep and wide, just like the Angus used to be and my Belties still are.

 

[BAGTIC]

"We already have mini mini cows afterall ....we call them SHEEP!!"

Around here a lot of ranchers are selling their herds and starting over with goats. I wonder how anyone could expect to make money raising goats? After all they are SOOO small.

The point is that customers want MEAT and they are increasingly becoming less particular about what kind of meat it is as long as they can afford it.

 

[Frankie]

I don't want to be chicken little and I certainly don't want too pour gas on this debate but IF this trend continues we might ALL have to become grassfed hippies whether we want too or not...

I got this from the Angus people in the email...

"News Update
Jan. 11, 2006
Ethanol Production Threatening Livestock Industry, Food Supply
Think tanks and livestock producers alike are alarmed at the rate of growth of the ethanol industry and its effect on feed supplies for the meat industry.
Ron Plain, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, says that increases in corn costs have already added 25% to the cost of raising hogs to slaughter weight, from a projected $40 per hundredweight (cwt.) in early 2006, to an actual cost of about $50 per cwt. If corn continues to the $4.05 per bushel price level considered the break-even in ethanol production, the increased feed costs will add 31% to the cost of hog production.
Gene Gourley, an Iowa pork producer and swine nutritionist, testified on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council to the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday that ethanol producers are receiving huge subsidies of $1.53 per bushel of corn purchased and tax credits of $0.51 per gallon (gal.) of ethanol produced, resulting in runaway growth in ethanol production. "These incentives have the ethanol industry growing at an almost unbelievable pace," he said in his testimony. "New plants are springing up everywhere, and they're using a lot of corn."
Lester Brown, president of Washington think tank Earth Policy Institute (EPI), compiled figures concerning ethanol plant construction and planned construction, and says USDA projections of the amount of corn needed to feed the ethanol industry are far short of actual demand. By 2008, he says, automobiles will be eating as much corn as is in the food system, and that will endanger the global food supply. One 25-gal. tank of ethanol, he says, consumes an amount of corn that would directly or indirectly feed a person for a year.
Brown says that ethanol construction data available is lagging behind the real world, where plants are going into production on a weekly basis, with the rate accelerating. He counts 116 plants in production at year-end 2006, consuming 53 million tons of corn annually. He counts 79 more in various stages of construction, while the Renewable Fuels Association counts only 62, and 200 more on the drawing board.
So, while USDA projects consumption of 60 million tons of corn for ethanol during the 2008 harvest, EPI projects consumption of 139 million tons, more than double the USDA estimate.
According to Janet Larsen, director of research at EPI, corn growers may or may not make up the difference by planting more and more productive corn, but the inevitable result is higher food prices. "Increasing the subsidies for ethanol production, as the Democrats are suggesting, is completely uncalled for," she said. "Higher food prices could cause a consumer backlash against ethanol."
EPI suggests instead that fuel efficiency standards be increased to lower dependence on ethanol and that tax credits for ethanol production be reduced or eliminated.
— release provided by Meatingplace.com"

"The Ethanol Myth"

http://www.aragriculture.org/News/beefc ... er2006.pdf

 

[MikeC]

RIO DE JANEIRO – Brazilians aren't waiting for high-priced hybrid cars.
Drivers are fighting rising gasoline prices by buying "flex" or "flexible fuel" cars that slurp more alcohol.
Alcohol made from sugar cane is becoming the fuel of choice in Brazil, and other countries - so much so that global sugar prices hit a seven-year high this week.

Regular car engines will run fine on a 10 percent blend of alcohol and gasoline. But by using computer sensors that adjust to whatever mix is in the tank, flex car engines run on either ethanol, gasoline, or any combination of the two. And they have been roaring out of dealerships here since Volkswagen sold the first TotalFlex Golf in March 2003.

Today, flex cars are outselling traditional gasoline models. In August, 62 percent of new cars sold were flex, according to industry numbers. "Demand has been unbelievable," says Barry Engle, the new president of Ford Brasil. "I am hard-pressed to think of any other technology that has been such a success so quickly."

As many countries reexamine their dependence on petroleum fields for fuel, Brazil offers a model for how to make the switch to cane, beet, wheat, or corn fields. The successful transition here comes down to many factors, but price is the primary one, experts say.

Unlike hybrids sold in the US, for example, flex cars sold in Brazil don't cost any more than traditional models. In fact, some models are only available with flex engines now. Ethanol engines use 25 percent more ethanol per mile than gasoline. But ethanol (the alcohol produced by fermenting sugar) usually sells at somewhere between a third to half of the price of gas. Even people who were reluctant to take the plunge and buy a flex say they have been won over by the savings.

"It's been a revelation because of the economy," says Madalena Lira, a university lecturer who says that she and her husband had reluctantly purchased a flex car because it was the only available version of the Fiat Palio Weekend they wanted. "I love this car in spite of it being a flex, not because it is a flex. The savings have been great. I'd certainly buy another one."

In addition to the savings, environmentally conscious drivers appreciate having a car that runs on a cleaner fuel, and some might even buy a flex car because they know it is good for the country's auto and sugar manufacturers. But today, two-and-a-half years into the flex experiment, another unforeseen advantage is emerging.

"There is something curious that we are just starting to see," says Alfred Szwarc, an ethanol consultant with Sao Paulo's sugar cane association. "Gasoline powered cars lose more of their [resale] value than flex cars. People know that oil is finite and that it is going to get more and more expensive. They think that a gasoline-powered car is going to be more difficult to sell. They see flex cars as the car of the future."

Ethanol-powered cars are not new in Brazil. In a bid to cut the country's reliance on foreign oil imports and help their own sugar producers, Brazil's military government pushed alcohol-powered cars in the early 1980s. Gas stations across the country added ethanol pumps to the existing gasoline and diesel ones. Between 1983 and 1988 more than 88 percent of cars sold annually were running on a blend of ethanol and gasoline.

This didn't last for long, though. The subsidies were withdrawn at the end of the decade, and cane farmers quickly realized they could get more from selling sugar than turning it into ethanol. When alcohol fuel shortages ensued it looked like the end of the road for ethanol engines as sales of the experimental cars plummeted.

That experience may have been a bitter one but it gave Brazilians a taste for alternative fuels that lingered. Although most people abandoned ethanol cars, many taxi drivers kept them because it was so much cheaper than a gas-only car. Then the country's Congress passed a law forcing oil companies to add small quantities of ethanol to their gasoline. That prompted car companies to experiment with an engine that would run on both fuels, and when they did, the flex car sales took off.

"Why did this take off here?" asks Mr. Engle. "Because this isn't brand-new. Car buyers concerned about high gas prices or potential ethanol shortages no longer have to make a choice between the two. It used to be an either-or but now there's both and that gives consumers peace of mind and explains why Brazilians have embraced it."

The next task is convincing other nations to adopt the technology, industry experts said. With oil prices at a record high, there is a clear advantage to diluting gasoline or even substituting it, with sugar-based ethanol or one of the biofuel alternatives such as beets or corn.

For most countries, the problem is the lack of ethanol production and a distribution system. Although many countries require oil companies to dilute their gasoline with ethanol (in Brazil, gas sold at the pumps is 25 percent ethanol; and some of the gas sold in the US, China, Australia and Canada is 10-15 percent ethanol), few actually make ethanol or manufacture flex vehicles, and even fewer have a network of gas stations with ethanol pumps.

In the US - with about 4 million flex cars - there are 14 states without even one ethanol pump, says Robert White, project director for the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.

With years of experience at every stage of the process, Brazil is in the pole position to help other nations' farmers grow crops, scientists refine it into fuel, or engineers produce the technology to make flex cars, says Rogelio Golfarb, president of Brazil's car makers association. "There is an enormous demand from abroad to know more," Mr. Golfarb says "This is an advantage and an opportunity for Brazil."

 

[Brandonm2]

I don't want to be chicken little and I certainly don't want too pour gas on this debate but IF this trend continues we might ALL have to become grassfed hippies whether we want too or not...

I got this from the Angus people in the email...

"News Update
Jan. 11, 2006
Ethanol Production Threatening Livestock Industry, Food Supply
Think tanks and livestock producers alike are alarmed at the rate of growth of the ethanol industry and its effect on feed supplies for the meat industry.
Ron Plain, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri, says that increases in corn costs have already added 25% to the cost of raising hogs to slaughter weight, from a projected $40 per hundredweight (cwt.) in early 2006, to an actual cost of about $50 per cwt. If corn continues to the $4.05 per bushel price level considered the break-even in ethanol production, the increased feed costs will add 31% to the cost of hog production.
Gene Gourley, an Iowa pork producer and swine nutritionist, testified on behalf of the National Pork Producers Council to the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday that ethanol producers are receiving huge subsidies of $1.53 per bushel of corn purchased and tax credits of $0.51 per gallon (gal.) of ethanol produced, resulting in runaway growth in ethanol production. "These incentives have the ethanol industry growing at an almost unbelievable pace," he said in his testimony. "New plants are springing up everywhere, and they're using a lot of corn."
Lester Brown, president of Washington think tank Earth Policy Institute (EPI), compiled figures concerning ethanol plant construction and planned construction, and says USDA projections of the amount of corn needed to feed the ethanol industry are far short of actual demand. By 2008, he says, automobiles will be eating as much corn as is in the food system, and that will endanger the global food supply. One 25-gal. tank of ethanol, he says, consumes an amount of corn that would directly or indirectly feed a person for a year.
Brown says that ethanol construction data available is lagging behind the real world, where plants are going into production on a weekly basis, with the rate accelerating. He counts 116 plants in production at year-end 2006, consuming 53 million tons of corn annually. He counts 79 more in various stages of construction, while the Renewable Fuels Association counts only 62, and 200 more on the drawing board.
So, while USDA projects consumption of 60 million tons of corn for ethanol during the 2008 harvest, EPI projects consumption of 139 million tons, more than double the USDA estimate.
According to Janet Larsen, director of research at EPI, corn growers may or may not make up the difference by planting more and more productive corn, but the inevitable result is higher food prices. "Increasing the subsidies for ethanol production, as the Democrats are suggesting, is completely uncalled for," she said. "Higher food prices could cause a consumer backlash against ethanol."
EPI suggests instead that fuel efficiency standards be increased to lower dependence on ethanol and that tax credits for ethanol production be reduced or eliminated.
— release provided by Meatingplace.com"

"The Ethanol Myth"

http://www.aragriculture.org/News/beefc ... er2006.pdf

Are you saying that the ANGUS Association is WRONG on this?? I think some of the environmental wackoes they quoted in that article were fruit loops; but there is no denying that more ethanol plants are coming on line in the next 36 months and unless a lot more acres are planted in corn that is going to have an effect on corn price and availability. Saturday I am going to try to attend a conference the state of AL is having about converting pulpwood into fuel. At some point in this country's future we are going to have to stop making whack job regimes rich by buying their oil. IF that means we convert the corn to ethanol and fatten the cows the best we can on grass, corn husks, cobs, and stubble I CAN live with that.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

"Why would you take a normal size cow, and have her produce LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING than she is capable of??"

It isn't about 'LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING" per cow. It is about 'per acre' or 'per ton of hay/feed'.

If the cows are smaller and more efficient feed converters the lower weight per cow may be offset by the greater number of cows that can be raised on he same resources.

The bottom line is pounds of beef per acre, not pounds of beef per broodcow.

My remark was concerning taking a normal size cow & breeding her to a miniature bull. It had nothing to do with "efficient cow size".
If you take a normal size cow & make her raise a less than normal size calf, you are wasting your resources. The cow is still going to eat "almost" the same whether she raises 600# or 400# of calf.
Now if you look at this project as changing your total herd over to smaller type cows, AND you can get much more money for the offspring - go for it.
There are nitch markets all over. If you want to devote the time & energy to chase a nitch, have at it. There is enough work involved in doing a good job marketing cattle in the main stream of things for me. Remember, you have to compensate your time & energy.

 

[KMacGinley]

I believe that that is the idea behind lowlines, to run more cows per acre and produce calves that can be fattened on grass or very little grain. Up until ww2 this was how all cattle were raised. The small framed cattle were not fed on grain immediately after weaning for the most part, but on grass until the very end. Consumers rightly or wrongly think that this is healthier and will pay a premium for it.

 

[BAGTIC]

The Brazilian example is a non starter.

First Brazil does not have any domestic petroleum supplies.

Brazil does not have coal reserves that can be converted to synfuels. The US has the world's largest proven coal reserves.

Brazilian gas consumption is only 5% of U.S, consumption.

Brazil is a tropical country that depends on sugar cane surpluses for cheap alcohol. There is a worldwide glut of cane sugar which is one reason so many US beet sugar manufacturers have been driven out of business. Sugarcane is the most efficient producer of sugar/alcohol in the world. Corn and other temperate zone crops can not even come close.

Converting grains to alcohol is a very inefficient process. The net energy recovered in the alcohol is only about 10%. In effect they are destroying 9 units of energy for every one put in the fuel tank. OTOH, biodiesel is at least three times as efficient as alcohol.

Gasohol's greatest value is as a political sop to the corn belt. In the old days politicians used to hand out free whiskey at the polling places to buy votes. Today they offer ethereal gasohol programs instead.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

I believe that that is the idea behind lowlines, to run more cows per acre and produce calves that can be fattened on grass or very little grain. Up until ww2 this was how all cattle were raised. The small framed cattle were not fed on grain immediately after weaning for the most part, but on grass until the very end. Consumers rightly or wrongly think that this is healthier and will pay a premium for it.

Small framed cattle were "backgrounded" to grow SIZE prior to putting them on grain. The new modern calves are weaned with adequate size (of normal breeds) so they don't need to be "backgrounded" and are put on grain for about the same length of time the backgrounded cattle used to be fed.
Farmers failed to look at TIME as being an expense.
Backgrounding was very normal in the 60's, 70's, & I believe in the 80's.