Yesterday, I wrote:

>I strongly disagree with the point made that yeilds would drop
significantly from a switch to grass feeding.  >When compared to total cost
in terms stated above, I feel that yeilds would improve.  Feedloting is a
wasteful >luxury expense IMO, sort of a cosmetic luxury.... makes the cattle
pretty and fat, drives meat prices up, but >doesn't improve numbers of
cattle so much.


Richar Archer responded:

>>>>Hello Bernard,
>>>>
>>>>I think you are underestimating the amount of energy grazing animals
spend moving around. The main >>>>reason feedlots fatten animals are that
the animals are prevented from roaming. All the food they eat >>>>goes into
fat.
>>>>
>>>>Yours sincerely,
>>>>Richard Archer.



I understand this concept, and I don't think that I am underestimating.
Feedlotting is a very short process relative to the animal's lifespan.  Up
until feedlotting, I think that conventional cattle are basically range
animals who spend nearly as much energy moving around as range-fed cattle.
I maintain my belief that an organism operates at peak efficiency while
eating its natural diet in its natural setting.  The fact that on a cow to
cow basis one cow contains more fat and total energy (kcal protein + kcal
fat) than another says nothing about the efficiency of producion when
comparing feedlotting to range-feeding .  You have to consider the use of
millions of acres of farmland for corn/soy etc., grain transport, cattle
transport to feedlot instead of directly to slaughter, etc.  A few fatty
cows may equal many lean ones when sheer cost of production is held equal.
In addition, I have a few more points:

Compared to energy (kcal prot. + kcal fat) produced by range-feeding cattle,
energy produced in feedlots, in the form of subcutaneous and inter-muscular
fat induced by inactivity and grain consumtion, is inefficiently produced
and in some important cases, wasted and unwanted.  First of all, as
mentioned above, the acerage and energy required to grow, process and
transport feed for feedlots is staggering.  In addition, it is my
understanding that subcutaneous fat, a major factor in a feedlot animal's
total fat content, is frequently thrown out, if not by manufacturers and
butchers, but by the consumers themselves.  This is true especially
considering the current 'low-fat' craze.   At best it is used as a filler in
hamburger, or dog food etc.  So I think that a significant amount of the
energy from grain is wasted in this way, and that this is a cost to both
producer and consumer (I don't mean to get off the subject of sheer cost to
producer, but I feel costs to consumers and society are notable).

The inter-muscular fat, or marbling, is the chief reason for grain
finishing.  It exists solely to improve tenderness and flavor.  By the
standards of today's butchers and consumers, the increase in fat is
basically an unwanted attribute, considered a 'necessary evil' associated
with the so called 'necessity' of marbling.  If you want good tasteing meat,
you need marbling, and so you get extra fat, at your expense, and so on.
Don't get me wrong,
now, I want the fat.  I just want it from natural sources.  You can get suet
from Lassater for 69 cents/ pound, or better yet, find a rancher and get it
for free.


On one final note, consider the notion that the artificial condition of
'finished' meat is not in keeping with our ancestral diet, and is, in terms
of lipid profile, possibly unhealthy and potentially dangerous (specifically
against the backdrop of the western diet).  One could argue that the
production cost of such meat should include social costs like health care
bills asociated with its consumtion.  Here, again, I blur the notion of
sheer production cost, but it's worth mentioning.

B. Lischer