Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed

Humanity’s food chain is a significant contributor to our planet’s cycle of life. Consumption of animals, as well as plants, ensures that humanity can continue to grow. However, many practices come into question on the methods used to utilize animals for the benefit of humanity. Is it necessary to treat animals in specific ways if—let’s say—we used animals for food? Many of us believe it is necessary to treat them well to gain the maximum nourishment possible from animals we consume. Our society’s agricultural industry must rear and finish animals in as close to a natural environment as possible to assure society of healthier foods.

Some Understanding of the Agricultural Industry

We must have a basic understanding of the agricultural industry before we can delve into its problems. Additionally, we will focus upon that portion of the industry related to rearing and finishing cattle. In our search for understanding, we first turn to food activist and author, Michael Pollan who, in his work titled The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, delivers that understanding.

In his work, he informs us that there are two contrasting agricultural practices, namely: grass-fed and conventional cattle feeding.

Grass-Fed (Free Range) Catting Feeding

Before we get into the details of the practices, let’s first take a cosmetic look at organic and conventional cattle farming. In figure 1, grass-fed cattle are fed on… grass. They are spaced relatively far apart and take part in activities natural to them. They can move around at will as they select the various pastures they wish to consume. The picture presented of grass-fed cattle displays animals in a calm environment. Farmers don't just limit free-range animals to cattle. They could include any animal.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

In contrast, you have concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or the conventional agricultural method for raising cattle (figure 2). There is little space between each head of cattle. They are made to stand very close to one another with little to no movement. Additionally, they are made to stand in the very manure they produce. This type of lifestyle can lead to problems not only to their health but also to the health of adjacent farms (Planck, 2006). After looking at these images, ask yourself this question: What type of beef would you select for your meal?

Grass Farming

Farmers employing organic, or grass farming, base their farm’s operation on the growth cycle of grass (Pollan, 2007, p. 70). Every so often, grass farmers will rotate their livestock from one area of pasture to another (Pollan, 2007, p. 189). In this manner, livestock from cows to chickens have ample time to perform their natural tasks ensuring proper fertilization and pest control (Pollan, 2007, p. 126). Based on these processes, man-made fertilizers and pesticides are rarely, if ever, used on grass farms. Grass-fed cattle do not require antibiotics and they do not succumb to the many ailments experienced by those reared and finished in concentrated animal feeding operations.

Grain-Fed Cattle

We have discussed how, in contrast to grass-fed cattle, grain-fed cattle are not allowed to roam selected pastures and graze from birth to finishing as nature, evolution, and man intended. Instead, once cattle reach 6 months of age, they are restricted to feedlots and fed overabundances of grain to rapidly raise their weight to industrial standards (Pollan, 2007, p. 71). Once they reach a target weight, their bodies are then processed for food and other industrial products (Marti, 2011). In today’s food processing method, little of the cow is left to waste. While CAFO’s accomplish this task on a great scale, it presents a host of problems to both the cattle and the eventual consumer of cattle parts. One such problem is the introduction of the cattle’s food and its effects on the physiology of cattle.

It’s perplexing, to say the least, why cattle, that have evolved to feed on a diet of grass, are fed a diet of grain. The reason for this type of feeding is to allow them to grow more rapidly. Growing cattle to a certain weight faster ensures that they are ready for slaughter and processing into the meat we crave to eat in a timely fashion (Pollan, 2007, p. 70-71). The problem with the grain diet is that cattle are not designed to consume grain. One of the consequences of this diet is that their stomach contents become acidic to the point of physical intolerance. Over time, the acid will eat its way out of the digestive system causing subsequent problems with the liver (Pollan, 2007, p. 78). Grain diets, while making them appear more healthy and tasty to people are, in fact, the opposite. Cattle can’t be placed on this diet for longer than 150 days because they will likely die.

Industrial Benefits to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

CAFOs ultimately provide cheap and plentiful meat products to the world’s population. These cheap and plentiful products, unfortunately, are not without its consequences. In order for cattle processing from CAFOs to be successful, intense quality control measures are in place to prevent contamination of the food supply. One example of food contamination is with respect to mad cow disease (MCD).

People who consume MCD-contaminated beef products will develop a fatal brain infection for which there is no treatment (Brown, 2008). Processing plants, for instance, are forbidden to process cattle that can’t stand or walk because they may have this disease. Poor quality control measures in California, in one example, failed to prevent the consumption of millions of pounds of meat products from these ailing animals. Official reports for this incident state that these products weren’t contaminated by MCD; however, that discovery is nothing more than a very close call. Grass-fed cattle do not have these same issues.

Health Benefits of Grass-Fed Cattle Operations

We can continue to speculate on a myriad of biological problems associated with the consumption of poorly reared cattle on feedlots. The system currently works in a manner that suits our society (i.e., people continue to buy grain-fed meat products). More important, however, are the health benefits not gained from such a process. It seems clear that, when compared to grain-fed cattle, grass-fed cattle has a rearing process that is healthier and more humane. We find that, on a nutritional scale, meat from grass-fed cattle is healthier than grain-fed cattle. Specifically, grass-fed cattle contain higher quantities of chemicals such as antioxidants and essential fatty acids (Daley, 2010).

Antioxidants are chemicals that limit or inhibit the adverse effects of free radicals within the human body (WebMD, 2006). “Free radicals” is a phrase given to those chemical reactions within the body that are believed to promote cell damage, aging, and even cancer. Similarly, fatty acids, such as omega-3, help to reduce inflammation throughout the body. Omega-3’s most significant contribution to our health is with respect to lowering heart disease risk and promoting defenses against cancer (Daley, 2010). Unfortunately, we can’t grow these chemicals in sufficient quantities within our body. Instead, we must gain our nutrition from sources like cattle in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The True Origin of Grass-Fed Beef Nutrients

Interestingly enough, the nutrients we discussed do not originate from the cattle themselves. The cattle gain them from the very pastures they consume. It seems obvious then that, if cattle continue to eat pasture before finishing, they would have higher nutritional value. However, despite even three decades of research, we are only now beginning to take our steps towards a healthier food process (Daley, 2010). Fortunately, the driving force of this research comes from us. As consumers, we have a right to know the ingredients of our food.

Consumers control the industry.

Consumers, at some basic level, control the demand of food development and supply. People want healthier foods. They have a right to understand how those ingredients are processed into the meals on our plate. Picking up a piece of steak or ground beef isn’t as appealing when you have a glimpse at how grain-fed cattle are raised and slaughtered. They are beginning to demand a greater understanding of food ingredients. They want to have a healthier lifestyle and, if necessary, pay a higher price for it (Context Marketing, 2009). Sometimes, however, what you want and get are two different things.

While we want healthier foods and are willing to pay more for it, change, unfortunately, is easier said than done. Our agricultural industry wasn’t made overnight. As our population grew, our society needed to develop the current system that permitted rapid and widespread distribution of food throughout the globe. The most economical means of processing and distribution are what we have today. The plethora of medical treatments and sterilization practices used in these processes helps to ensure the ailments cattle face does not transfer over to humans. One can only wonder if this method of food production is sustainable. We should instead see how we can improve upon the system, rather than overhaul it entirely. Baby steps of logic are sometimes more important than giant leaps of faith.

Reality and Modification of Practices

The best, and seemingly most cost-effective, way to improve this system is to revert a portion of its operations back to a grass-farming concept. Take the grain-fed cattle and, before they are slaughtered, place them back on grass to restore at least a portion of their health. People who have attempted this found that cattle products are nearly as nutritious as grass-fed cattle and more economical than cattle from feedlots (Rosmann, 2002). Think of it this way: As cattle are raised on their natural food (grass) they become less susceptible to the ailments and living conditions we’ve discussed. As a result, less medical intervention, in the form of doctors and antibiotics, are required. Raising cattle on pasture, with limited grain supplementation, is cheaper. More importantly, there is more opportunity for profit. We, unfortunately, must speak of profits, because without an indication of profit, this research remains at a standstill.

According to research presented by Ron Rosmann and the Organic Farming Research Foundation, combined pasture and grain feeding produce cattle for finishing that are 12 kg heavier than CAFO cattle (Rosmann, 2002). Unfortunately, this method takes 55-days longer of feeding. The longer period of time does not bode well for the method. However, the price difference per head of cattle was significantly less in pasture-based and pasture with limited grain supplement than in normal CAFOs. The cost alone signifies additional adjustments to conventional agriculture of cattle. Comparisons of the different cattle on a nutritional scale shows that CAFO cattle provide the least nutrition to people.

Research Significance

The significance of the above research is that we don’t have to completely revamp our agricultural industry. Placing grain-fed cattle on pasture, even five days before finishing will make them healthier (Planck, 2006). As the majority of cattle on grain diets harbor E. coli harmful to humans, placing them in grass pastures five days before finishing reduces this bacteria 1000 fold. You’re taking grain-fed cattle and placing them back on the pasture for replenishment of their health. It can’t be a bad thing to anything other than the industrial schedule. Unfortunately, such a delay appears to be bad enough. Research has been continuing for years on this subject with not much movement from the agricultural industry.

So far, we’ve discussed the differences in rearing, medical problems associated with grain feeding, and the nutritional differences grass- and grain-fed cattle. What, if any, impacts on society’s choice for meat will these discussions have? It will have zero impact if consumers don’t perceive a positive difference. The reason for this is simple: Humanity believes what it initially perceives. If it tastes good, then you’re going to try it again. Since most of us have likely been raised on grain-fed steak, it’s possible that we may take some time before trying out a grass-fed steak. It will take time to convince people to pay a little extra for beef that they aren’t used to tasting, despite the fact that it is healthier.

Taste is in the tongue of the beholder.

One concern with the perception of grass-fed beef is the difference in flavor when compared to grain-fed beef. Another matter is with respect to tenderness and juiciness as grass-fed beef pails in comparison to the grain-fed product (Martz, 2000). Taste shouldn’t affect when eating something healthier, but it does. It is, therefore, both cost-effective and more receptive to consumers to ensure that there is a combined pasture and grain diet for cattle.

One negative aspect of the research presented is availability. It is possible that it’s taken longer to produce a movement and sentiment for grass-fed products because there haven’t been many people to promote it. As we discussed earlier, the consumer can drive change in the industry. If more people were familiar with the debate between grain and grass agricultures, perhaps more change would occur today. When you get down to it, who are the actual people purchasing grass-fed foods? The foods aren’t local and they tend to be a bit more expensive. Grass-fed foods aren’t as readily available to a mother supporting two children, as it would be with someone single. Grass-fed foods aren’t always advertised on television. Supermarkets don’t always sell them.

We must control our role in the agricultural industry.

We have grown on the food provided to us by the agricultural industry. Some of its food processes are bearable, especially when we don’t have to think about it. However, when faced with the reality that we indeed are what we eat, we find that many people become more active in ensuring their foods are healthier. Combining natural environments with current agriculture industrial practices will minimize inefficiency and maximize befits in our society. We may not be able to naturalize our agricultural industry entirely, but perhaps, we can continue efforts to change our methodologies to improve our current practices gradually. We must act to promote the positive benefits of grass-fed and combined grass and grain-fed cattle to the public to deliver a healthier product.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.

The link does not generate promotional benefits for the writer and is provided for educational purposes.