You've got ranchers in places like Wyoming where the forage is barely sufficient to keep livestock alive. Cattle raised under these conditions have to be fattened up before they can be sent to a slaughterhouse. Typically these cows will be shipped to another ranch that specializes in this before then being shipped to market. It sounds like the guy quoted in the article is running one of these secondary "fattening" ranches.
Since grain (or in this case candy) has a much higher energy content than grass, cattle can be raised to market weight much faster than if they were fed a grass diet.
"Ranch" isn't really what we're talking about here; cattle are sent from ranches to feed lots for fattening (which is what this guy is running, hence the ability to gin up new chemi-food on site.)
Feed lots are very highly concentrated populations of cattle that are fed a regulated diet of grain (corn) mixed with concentrated antibiotics and, in this case, rotten chocolate. Another commenter already referenced Pollan's work, which exposes the tradeoffs of this industrialized approach. Among these are increased e.coli outbreaks (as e.coli concentrate in the rumen of the cow when it tries to digest grain,) and the increased likelihood of antibiotic-resistent bacteria developing because of the tremendous amount of antibiotics used to keep animals living in these conditions from getting sick:
Yes, cows are supposed to eat grass. That is a part of their natural diet. There are farms in America that focus on sustainable agriculture and ethical animal husbandry. This article is talking about a factory farm, which focuses on profit.
Yes that is what they are supposed to be eating. Their digestive systems have evolved over millions of years to eat grass, and if they eat grass they will be healthier animals, and their meat will taste like real beef and not like tasteless cardboard. I pretty much stick exclusively to grass-fed beef. There are all these complex chemical compounds in grass that flavor the meat and give it rich and distinctive notes -- as the other commenter said, read Omnivore's Dilemma. The cattle are supposed to be able to walk around, too.
The reason it's not done is cost. Grass fed beef is easily twice as expensive as corn-fed beef. The cheapest way to raise cattle is to raise them in a CAFO, and feed them the cheapest possible feed, which has been corn for quite a long time. The farmer who is feeding his cattle candy is really just feeding them yesterday's corn, as most American candy is made from high fructose corn syrup. Walk into a supermarket sometime and count the number of products that use HFCS -- it's staggering. The price of corn going up is actually really big news -- if it's a sustained trend it's going to have a far-reaching impact on American agriculture.
I don't find that beef ever tastes like tasteless cardboard, unless it is cooked completely incorrectly.
Without arguing about whether grass-fed beef is tastier in general, I wonder if anyone has ever done a blind test to discover if the grass (you know, the complex compounds flavoring the meat) can actually be tasted in the beef by an ordinary person.
As you observe, not everyone can afford grass-fed beef.
I probably sound like a food snob, but when I'm thinking of beef that tastes like cardboard, I'm thinking of a Big Mac, for example. If you take all the condiments and just eat the beef only, it's pretty tasteless, IMO.
A lot of people say there is a taste difference, not just me. It's subtle though, your ordinary person may not notice or care. But I'm passionate about it because I'm big into food and I think the taste of grass fed is much better.
I definitely agree with you about the Big Mac, that clarifies what you meant. Like everything at McDonald's it is mostly edible insofar as it is very hot. I think what is going on there is that freezing and steaming it makes it tasteless.
But I have never found a homemade burger to be tasteless, and I don't eat McDonald's any more for health reasons, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Main reason is 'speed to fatness' the second reason is that he doesn't have corn because of a drought, which also affects not having grass (or more typically hay/alfalfa)
America ought to think about that question deeply. Corn fed ground beef in the supermarket is $3-4 per pound while grass raised ground beef is $7-$9 per pound. We (Americans) are making ourselves very sick with degenerative diseases (cancer, heart, alzeimer's, dementia, arthritis) at rates orders of magnitude larger than our ancestors. I believe the race to make cheap food (corn feed beef in this example) is causing health suffering on the backend (degenerative disease)
and a less active lifestyle. and more consumption of processed foods in general. Even if McDonalds started using 100% grass-fed beef, I don't think that would make much difference in the overall health value of a Quarter Pounder & Fries.
Animals do not grow as fast on grass. Also, they do not taste the way Americans like their animals to taste. Land availability also plays a factor as it takes more acre per animal using grass vs corn/sugar.
Comments
Hmmm, why don't they feed them grass? Isn't that what they are supposed to be eating? I'm no farmer, honest question.
You've got ranchers in places like Wyoming where the forage is barely sufficient to keep livestock alive. Cattle raised under these conditions have to be fattened up before they can be sent to a slaughterhouse. Typically these cows will be shipped to another ranch that specializes in this before then being shipped to market. It sounds like the guy quoted in the article is running one of these secondary "fattening" ranches.
Since grain (or in this case candy) has a much higher energy content than grass, cattle can be raised to market weight much faster than if they were fed a grass diet.
Edit: I accidentally a word.
"Ranch" isn't really what we're talking about here; cattle are sent from ranches to feed lots for fattening (which is what this guy is running, hence the ability to gin up new chemi-food on site.)
Feed lots are very highly concentrated populations of cattle that are fed a regulated diet of grain (corn) mixed with concentrated antibiotics and, in this case, rotten chocolate. Another commenter already referenced Pollan's work, which exposes the tradeoffs of this industrialized approach. Among these are increased e.coli outbreaks (as e.coli concentrate in the rumen of the cow when it tries to digest grain,) and the increased likelihood of antibiotic-resistent bacteria developing because of the tremendous amount of antibiotics used to keep animals living in these conditions from getting sick:
http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2010/07/media/00...
(That ankle-deep black stuff is poo, which also runs and collects in giant sewer pools that generate toxic runoff.)
Just so. Feed lot was the term I was looking for but couldn't remember. Thanks for providing clarification.
Yes, cows are supposed to eat grass. That is a part of their natural diet. There are farms in America that focus on sustainable agriculture and ethical animal husbandry. This article is talking about a factory farm, which focuses on profit.
Yes that is what they are supposed to be eating. Their digestive systems have evolved over millions of years to eat grass, and if they eat grass they will be healthier animals, and their meat will taste like real beef and not like tasteless cardboard. I pretty much stick exclusively to grass-fed beef. There are all these complex chemical compounds in grass that flavor the meat and give it rich and distinctive notes -- as the other commenter said, read Omnivore's Dilemma. The cattle are supposed to be able to walk around, too.
The reason it's not done is cost. Grass fed beef is easily twice as expensive as corn-fed beef. The cheapest way to raise cattle is to raise them in a CAFO, and feed them the cheapest possible feed, which has been corn for quite a long time. The farmer who is feeding his cattle candy is really just feeding them yesterday's corn, as most American candy is made from high fructose corn syrup. Walk into a supermarket sometime and count the number of products that use HFCS -- it's staggering. The price of corn going up is actually really big news -- if it's a sustained trend it's going to have a far-reaching impact on American agriculture.
I don't find that beef ever tastes like tasteless cardboard, unless it is cooked completely incorrectly.
Without arguing about whether grass-fed beef is tastier in general, I wonder if anyone has ever done a blind test to discover if the grass (you know, the complex compounds flavoring the meat) can actually be tasted in the beef by an ordinary person.
As you observe, not everyone can afford grass-fed beef.
I probably sound like a food snob, but when I'm thinking of beef that tastes like cardboard, I'm thinking of a Big Mac, for example. If you take all the condiments and just eat the beef only, it's pretty tasteless, IMO.
A lot of people say there is a taste difference, not just me. It's subtle though, your ordinary person may not notice or care. But I'm passionate about it because I'm big into food and I think the taste of grass fed is much better.
I definitely agree with you about the Big Mac, that clarifies what you meant. Like everything at McDonald's it is mostly edible insofar as it is very hot. I think what is going on there is that freezing and steaming it makes it tasteless.
But I have never found a homemade burger to be tasteless, and I don't eat McDonald's any more for health reasons, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Main reason is 'speed to fatness' the second reason is that he doesn't have corn because of a drought, which also affects not having grass (or more typically hay/alfalfa)
Also, check Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan for an in depth look at America, corn and other food.
America ought to think about that question deeply. Corn fed ground beef in the supermarket is $3-4 per pound while grass raised ground beef is $7-$9 per pound. We (Americans) are making ourselves very sick with degenerative diseases (cancer, heart, alzeimer's, dementia, arthritis) at rates orders of magnitude larger than our ancestors. I believe the race to make cheap food (corn feed beef in this example) is causing health suffering on the backend (degenerative disease)
The rate of those types of disease being higher are maybe also a consequence of a longer lifespan.
and a less active lifestyle. and more consumption of processed foods in general. Even if McDonalds started using 100% grass-fed beef, I don't think that would make much difference in the overall health value of a Quarter Pounder & Fries.
I've always wondered if you could combine a sod farm and cattle ranch? You've got to cut the grass anyway.
I'm sure there would be problems such as trampling the grass, over-grazing, but maybe they're solvable??
Animals do not grow as fast on grass. Also, they do not taste the way Americans like their animals to taste. Land availability also plays a factor as it takes more acre per animal using grass vs corn/sugar.
What about "Because drought affects all living plants not only corn"?
I'm no farmer either, but I assume grass doesn't have the effect they're looking for (weight gain), and they'd probably need much more of it.
that wouldn't make them fat enough.