Grains are the fruit of grass plants. Is there a scientific explanation for why the two are separated in lifestock feed advertising or is it just marketing?
In: 0
When people talk about grain fed, I think they really mean corn fed. There is a difference in grass fed vs corn fed. Corn fed is actually less healthy for the cow because they are not supposed to eat corn, they can have bacteria in their body and that bacteria gets on the meat during slaughter/butchering. This is why some livestock gets antibiotics, to counteract the bacteria. So they say grass fed is better, but there is a change in the way fat is stored / distributed in the body when they eat corn vs grass, and this has an impact on how the food tastes / the cut of meat.
Just because they’re technically from the same plant does not mean they’re identical. Just as eating an apple isn’t the same thing as eating an apple leaf or the bark of an apple tree, grass and grains have different nutritional values, and affect the quality and flavour of the beef. It’s not just marketing.
Just because they’re technically from the same plant does not mean they’re identical. Just as eating an apple isn’t the same thing as eating an apple leaf or the bark of an apple tree, grass and grains have different nutritional values, and affect the quality and flavour of the beef. It’s not just marketing.
When people talk about grain fed, I think they really mean corn fed. There is a difference in grass fed vs corn fed. Corn fed is actually less healthy for the cow because they are not supposed to eat corn, they can have bacteria in their body and that bacteria gets on the meat during slaughter/butchering. This is why some livestock gets antibiotics, to counteract the bacteria. So they say grass fed is better, but there is a change in the way fat is stored / distributed in the body when they eat corn vs grass, and this has an impact on how the food tastes / the cut of meat.
Just because they’re technically from the same plant does not mean they’re identical. Just as eating an apple isn’t the same thing as eating an apple leaf or the bark of an apple tree, grass and grains have different nutritional values, and affect the quality and flavour of the beef. It’s not just marketing.
>Is there a scientific explanation for why the two are separated in lifestock feed advertising or is it just marketing?
Because they’re wildly different in appearance and nutritional content
Grass and Hay are both very bulky but not very nutrient rich, that’s why cows have 4 stomachs to help them break down grass and get the nutrients
Grain is wayyy denser in nutrients. A pound of grass hay has about 900 calories for the cow but a pound of feed corn has about 1500 calories, and corn is about 3x denser than hay so the same volume of corn contains about 5x the amount of calories making it a lot easier to fatten up a cow off grains like corn than just grass
The cow is going to eat until its stomach feels full. If you’re feeding it grain then its going to eat a lot more calories and pack on a lot more fat than if you were just feeding it low density hay
Just marketing , grass fed animals can walk , run ? Roll around , gallop if they want – all of which improves muscle mass and tone but this takes land and good pasture which can be expensive , grain fed or the other hand – cattle are kept in feed lots with minimal room to walk , run , in general exercise so muscles atrophy become flabby and cattle just put on fat which you pay for in the weight , you think you are buying tasty meat but end up getting flabby loose meat and lots of fat.
Fat can be tasty if it’s built on varied muscle and variety of grasses but corn just makes a yellowish tasteless fat
Feed lots are good for profits but useless for anything else
PROFITS FIRST! ITS THE AMERICAN WAY !!
>Is there a scientific explanation for why the two are separated in lifestock feed advertising or is it just marketing?
Because they’re wildly different in appearance and nutritional content
Grass and Hay are both very bulky but not very nutrient rich, that’s why cows have 4 stomachs to help them break down grass and get the nutrients
Grain is wayyy denser in nutrients. A pound of grass hay has about 900 calories for the cow but a pound of feed corn has about 1500 calories, and corn is about 3x denser than hay so the same volume of corn contains about 5x the amount of calories making it a lot easier to fatten up a cow off grains like corn than just grass
The cow is going to eat until its stomach feels full. If you’re feeding it grain then its going to eat a lot more calories and pack on a lot more fat than if you were just feeding it low density hay
When people talk about grain fed, I think they really mean corn fed. There is a difference in grass fed vs corn fed. Corn fed is actually less healthy for the cow because they are not supposed to eat corn, they can have bacteria in their body and that bacteria gets on the meat during slaughter/butchering. This is why some livestock gets antibiotics, to counteract the bacteria. So they say grass fed is better, but there is a change in the way fat is stored / distributed in the body when they eat corn vs grass, and this has an impact on how the food tastes / the cut of meat.
>Is there a scientific explanation for why the two are separated in lifestock feed advertising or is it just marketing?
Because they’re wildly different in appearance and nutritional content
Grass and Hay are both very bulky but not very nutrient rich, that’s why cows have 4 stomachs to help them break down grass and get the nutrients
Grain is wayyy denser in nutrients. A pound of grass hay has about 900 calories for the cow but a pound of feed corn has about 1500 calories, and corn is about 3x denser than hay so the same volume of corn contains about 5x the amount of calories making it a lot easier to fatten up a cow off grains like corn than just grass
The cow is going to eat until its stomach feels full. If you’re feeding it grain then its going to eat a lot more calories and pack on a lot more fat than if you were just feeding it low density hay
Latest Answers