Some food for thought for beginners.

Help Support CattleToday:

LCCattle

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Some food for thought for beginners.

Red Mountain's 40 head, mostly Angus, graze on non-genetically modified grass, mostly kikuyu. They're given no steroids or antibiotics and live a pampered, stress-free life. When they reach the age of two and 1,000 pounds,
TWO years! That's if your lucky and you have grass or the river doesn't rise. Plus you are using grass that could be producing more new calves by increasing your herd size.
Grain fed can reach 1,000 lbs in one year.
IMO, grass-fed in not cost effective.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/ ... 45a5e.html
 
Well then, I guess if finishing cattle on grass is not cost effective, then all those guys are out of business and there is no grass fed beef, right?

Or is it possible that some consumers cover the cost by exercising their right in a free market to pay more for grass-fed beef because they want cattle raised that way. Maybe they found out that ruminants aren't designed for high grain diets, as it causes acidosis, rumen ulceration and liver abscesses. Except that drugs are added to the ration to reduce the incidence. Last I heard it was acceptable if 15% of cattle had abscesses. Maybe some consumers aren't interested in that, and I think they have that right.

And those consumers also might not want cattle that are stressed in the weaning-sorting-hauling-processing that occurs before going to feedlots. To the point that many get sick and require more drugs.

And it helps to make grain feeding more "cost effective" by making taxpayers subsidize grain. Why don't we do that for grass?

Also to make grain more cost effective, cheap energy is needed to make fertilizer, and to run the machinery needed to plant, harvest and transport it. Then need cheap energy to haul all the cattle to the feedlots, and to feed the grain to cattle, and then haul the cattle to slaughterhouses.

Fortunately for this system, our government has had a policy of ensuring cheap energy. Of course, "cheap" is expensive. We have/will spend $10 trillion or so in the middle east mucking around over oil. Few people can comprehend how much a trillion is, let alone ten of them.

The Iraq war alone will cost an estimated $6 trillion after lifetime care of the maimed and debilitated troops. Since the 1950's when we installed a dictator in Iran who tortured his people, then they revolted and we supported Saddam against them. But he went into Kuwait thinking he had our blessing, but we had to start the mess bombing and starving Iraq for ten years until 9/11. So we mucked around and bombed some more, creating more terrorists and making ourselves a target. And had to spend trillions on new intelligence gathering departments, homeland security, etc.

So the war on terror will never end, but thank goodness it all leads to free-flowing oil and cost effective cattle feed!

Meanwhile, subsidies to grain make for cheaper junk food, so we can all get fatter. We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, and some are still worried about efficiently producing more food. So government promotes cheap junk food and obesity, then offers free health care to deal with the resulting illnesses like diabetes.

One branch of government creating problems while another fixes them. And round and round we go. Brilliant scam, actually.

Fortunately, though, we can just keep printing the money to pay for all this, which of course causes inflation and higher cost of living, fewer jobs and less money in our pockets to buy beef. Another reason more people are switching to chicken.
 
Plus you are using grass that could be producing more new calves by increasing your herd size.

The cattle are eating grain that could be used to feed humans. There are far more hungry humans on this planet than there are hungry cattle. Let's get our priorities straight.
 
City Guy":3ggnzp0c said:
Plus you are using grass that could be producing more new calves by increasing your herd size.

The cattle are eating grain that could be used to feed humans. There are far more hungry humans on this planet than there are hungry cattle. Let's get our priorities straight.

Typical reply from someone that has no clue to how it actually works.
 
And if these hungry humans are trying to live in an inhospitable area, without a food source and reproducing like its going out of style... Ill continue to feed my cattle that grain which will provide a ROI, not promote injudicious growth in an unsustainable habitat.
 
City guy, you stated you operated steak houses for twenty years yet you don't have a clue on the necessity of grain to grade out beef? Maybe better suited for a bakery. My freezer beef all get plenty of corn and other grains...
 
I was addressing LCC's comment that the fat cattle were eating grass that could be used to birth more calves, I was not trying to drive a wedge between grain fed and grass fed. Feeding grain just so more calves can be born doesn't seem to be a well thought-out strategy. It has been twenty years since I owned the restaurant and things are certainly different. To quote Mohammed Ali " If a man believes at fifty years of age what he believed at twenty years of age he has wasted thirty years."
The worst steak I ever ate was grass fed. The best steak I ever ate was grass fed. Both were expensive.
All the steaks I served in my restaurant were grain fed, as was the pork, the chicken and the catfish. I understand the concepts of "fed in" and "bred in" but I have talked to many cattlemen who don't seem to know the difference or know there is a difference. Isn't it time that we admit that grass fed beef is a different business than cattle ranching in the traditional sense? Different business with a different plan, different use of resources, different marketing, different customers, even different types of cattle.

Supa Dexta; Don't you think those hungry humans in inhospitable places would leave if they could? Maybe Eastern Canada can take some!
 
City Guy":3pgzuie5 said:
Plus you are using grass that could be producing more new calves by increasing your herd size.

The cattle are eating grain that could be used to feed humans. There are far more hungry humans on this planet than there are hungry cattle. Let's get our priorities straight.


For example - you skip all the necessary steps involved in safely getting the grain we produce into the hands of the hungry and needy as if we just show up with it in the back of our trucks and unload it into their grocery stores....
 
M-5":1vyq3mh1 said:
No secret but I can read all the books study on internet on how to do brain surgery, are you willing to let me practice on you?

Couldn't be that hard, I bet it's the basic model. :D
 
M-5":2bvw4bmi said:
No secret but I can read all the books study on internet on how to do brain surgery, are you willing to let me practice on you?

No much practice when there's no brain to work on is there?
 
TennesseeTuxedo":3d95xmjy said:
I prefer grain finished beef.

That's one difference to moving to Nebraska (from SC) that I noticed - prefer the corn finished beef up here, juicier, better marbling, better tasting.
 
City Guy":ml93dg45 said:
Plus you are using grass that could be producing more new calves by increasing your herd size.

The cattle are eating grain that could be used to feed humans. There are far more hungry humans on this planet than there are hungry cattle. Let's get our priorities straight.

Sounds like there are too many people. I'll bet we'll find that regard for human life goes down as the population increases.
 
shaz":1n1tfgiu said:
I'll bet we'll find that regard for human life goes down as the population increases.

There are people providing central air for their dogs and cats. People pay megabucks for complete funeral services when old Fido kicks the bucket. There are pet mortuaries, tombstones - all of it. But we have starving veterans. Go figure.
 

Latest posts

Top