Hi Ben,
Government subsidies on grain fed beef aren't inconsistent with what I 
was trying to say. Governments often encourage farming and animal 
husbandry practices that they believe to be superior or beneficial, 
through subsidies. For instance, in the 1960's I homesteaded 1/2 section 
of marginal land (grey wooded soil) wherein I could get clear title to 
that land by clearing, breaking, and cultivating 120 acres. This was 
land best suited to growing trees. (There was also a nominal per-acre 
fee.) The government policy, at the time, was to convert all possible 
land into arable farmland.  Perhaps government bureaucrats believe that 
the caloric increases driven by grain feeding are desirable.  As you 
pointed out, they certainly increase economic viability.

You are quite correct. Although there is some evidence that the protein 
additives are of limited nutritional value, they are otherwise waste 
materials of little or no value, which is part of what drives this 
continuing practice. However I was trying to say that waste products 
from chickens and pigs are still not appropriate feed for cattle. The 
same was true of bovine brain materials that were fed to cattle. They 
are ruminants, not carnivores. Deliberate feeding of animal products is, 
in my opinion, inappropriate.

My perception is that this feeding practice (cow brains fed to cows) was 
only predictable as a cause for mad cow (Jacobs Creutzfeldt) disease  if 
you were aware of the presence of these harmful prions and their impact 
on live cattle and humans. (We weren't.) I didn't raise cattle, so I 
lack first-hand experience here. My recollection is that most cattle 
farmers (neighbors and friends) were simply following standard, 
government endorsed practices to increase the protein intake of their 
cattle. Despite the cow's limited ability to make good use of such 
proteins (from animal products) we were told that these proteins were an 
important facet of a healthy diet for cattle. (Just a moment of critical 
thought might have told us otherwise.) My wife raised calves in the 
context of 4H in the early 1950s, and she was repeatedly admonished to 
feed bone meal and other animal products to her calves.  Cattle are not 
well adapted to eating these foods. Yet that was the dogma of the day.

Until these multiple, interconnected entrenched paradigms of animal and 
human nutrition are challenged on the basis of solid scientific 
findings, bureaucrats, government agencies, etc. will continue to 
admonish farmers  to follow prescribed feeding practices, often 
providing subsidies and tax incentives to do so. Farmers would reduce 
profits and produce apparently "puny" cattle following what many of us 
on this list consider desirable.

I am still repeatedly challenged when I advocate saturated fat 
consumption and limiting grain consumption for humans. I recently did a 
presentation to a group of teachers who instruct school children about 
nutrition.  Most were shocked and dismayed by what they considered to be 
my "radical" claims that a healthy diet should limit grain intake and 
embrace animal fats as generally healthy. They, quite sincerely, 
considered what I was saying to be quackery and were very clear that 
they would _*not*_ teach their students such nonsense.

I wasn't defending these feeding practices. I was simply pointing out 
that farmers are as much victims of these popular misconceptions about 
nutrition as everyone else, including many physicians. I was trying to 
say that it is a matter of misinformation rather than nefarious intent.

I hope that clarifies my position.
best wishes,
Ron


On 26/05/2011 6:50 AM, Balzer, Ben wrote:
> Ron
> How then do you explain the need for government to subsidise farmers 
> to produce grain fed beef?
> I think the point of the additives is that they add calories, and are 
> otherwise waste products. The benefits (and I presume the literature) 
> would reflect the economic benefits.
>
> Mad cow disease arose by feeding cattle the brains of deceased cattle. 
> in the New Guinea highlands, it was traditional to eat the brains of 
> your deceased relatives. These people came down with a slow virus 
> called kuru. It was predictable then that feeding cattle the brains of 
> their deceased relatives could introduce a life cycle for slow 
> viruses/prions. We're just lucky that this was a lot faster than kuru 
> so we realised it during the short lifespan of a cow, cf I recall 15 
> years or more for kuru.
>
> Regards
> Ben
>
> On 26/05/2011 11:22 PM, Ron Hoggan wrote:
>> Hi William,
>> The economic incentives are huge. Grain finishing, in addition to 
>> causing a lot of fat storage, causes the animal to produce more 
>> insulin, retain salt, and hence, retain water.... and they are paid 
>> by the pound. If you were a farmer, you might consider it foolish not 
>> to grain finish your cattle. If we want farmers to grow exclusively 
>> grass fed beef, we have to expect to pay a premium price because of 
>> the losses they incur. Prices would increase quite dramatically.
>>
>> Also, the whole veterinarian and agricultural world seems to think 
>> that the protein additives you mention are healthful and growth 
>> promoting. They are ignoring the fact that this is how we got mad cow 
>> disease. While switching to sources from other species does reduce 
>> some risks, it certainly does not eliminate the hazard of similarly 
>> devastating impacts on consumers. There is a huge body of literature 
>> that advocates these supplements.
>>
>> best wishes,
>> Ron
>