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