I had two sets of visitors to the farm today and the question of the pricing of organic goods came up again. Second to the great canard, organics cannot feed the world, it is the most common observation about our produce. That usually stops after tasting the quality and engaging on the subjects below.
As Joel Salatin so eloquently argues conventional food is mispriced. We can use any conventionally produced fruit, meat or vegetable for the purposes of this discussion but in this case lets look at feedlot or grain fed beef.
Here are the items that are not in the price that you pay for your steak (remember it is only ourselves and Greenfields who finish our beef on pasture/grass).
1. The environmental damage from the feedlot.
2. The antibiotic resistance in the human being from eating antibiotic meat.
3. The environmental damage from raising the GMO grains fed to these animals.
4. The humaneness or rather lack of it in having an animal stand in its own excrement for at least 110 days.
5. Contributing to global warming.
Before discussing in a little more detail have a look at the photo below of a feedlot in this country.
Now compare that with this picture taken last week whilst we were training our cattle to high density graze the vineyard cover crops. 200 cattle in a total of 2 hectares daily, moved twice a day versus an animal having 10 square metres to stand in for 110 days.
1. The environmental damage from the feedlot.
The waste from the feedlot is uncompostable as the antibiotics kill the microbes that would be breaking down the compost.
2. The antibiotic resistance in the human being from eating antibiotic meat.
You can choose to read anywhere you want but this is becoming a major global health issue. Don’t expect our Department of Health or of Agriculture to take any notice of this.
3. The environmental damage from raising the GMO grains fed to these animals.
Your beef eats GMO grains. South Africa is the only country in Africa that allows GMO grains and that makes us the stupidist country in Africa. The only ones who benefit from GMO grains are the companies selling glyphosate. Here is a concise update and explanation of what the problems are with GMO’s. Words such as spontaneous abortion and resistant super weeds should get you to read this article.
4. The humaneness or lack of it in having an animal stand in its own excrement for at least 110 days.
Should there be a premium for beef eating what it is designed to eat and being moved to fresh pasture at least twice daily? Or does the treatment of animals not matter as a price factor? Is it being too green to worry about these things?
5. Contributing to global warming.
Grain fed beef contributes to global warming. Admittedly not as much here as in the Americas but think about the diesel spent on preparing, growing, planting and harvesting the maize and soya and the diesel spent getting it to the silo and then to the feedlot. Compare this to high density grazing where the pastures recover to be grazed every 6 weeks. 65% of the sugars produced by the plant are stored in complex carbon chains in the ground. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere by a growing plant.
30 responses
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html
Prescription for Trouble: Using Antibiotics to Fatten Livestock
From Feedlot to Kitchen
Keeping Drugs Useful, Keeping Meat Cheap
The Challenges of Reducing Antibiotic Use
What’s Next
If you get food poisoning, will the antibiotic prescribed by your doctor be able to fight the infection? We regularly hear news stories heralding promising new drugs or drug therapy. Ironically, concealed in the din of information about new drugs looms a health crisis growing out of the loss of old drugs.
Once, a storehouse full of medicines such as penicillin and streptomycin could handily fight off most infections from bacteria and other microorganisms. Now, once-vulnerable bacteria have evolved resistance, and many of these drugs are losing their effectiveness. Health experts agree that there is serious danger of losing some of the most precious drugs—antibiotics, a subgroup of a larger group of threatened agents known as antimicrobials. Some strains of tuberculosis, for example, are now resistant to all available antimicrobial drugs. Unfortunately, tuberculosis is not the only resistant microorganism on the public health horizon.
Why are these drugs losing their power? Because they’re being overused. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics through overexposure to them. Hardy strains of the bacteria survive the exposure and pass on that resistance trait to successive generations. And they also pass the trait across to other bacteria that are unrelated, including some that cause human disease. Eventually the antibiotic wipes out all the vulnerable bacteria, and only resistant bacteria remain. Then the drug is no longer effective.
Preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics and other antimicrobials will require changes in all major areas of use: human medicine, veterinary medicine, and agriculture. But agricultural uses deserve special attention, since they account for 70 percent of the antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States, and since they provide resistant bacteria with a direct route into people’s kitchens.
From Feedlot to Kitchen
Resistant bacteria that develop in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) can be transferred to the general human population via food. The government, public health officials, and physicians are increasingly concerned about foodborne diseases caused by Campylobacter and Salmonella bacteria. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nationwide there are 76 million cases of foodborne illness a year and 5000 deaths from viral and bacterial pathogens.
As resistant strains of bacteria emerge, they have easy passage to humans—right though the grocery store. Campylobacter, for example, is carried into kitchens on poultry and can cause illness when people eat raw or undercooked poultry meat. While this does not always cause severe illness, the CDC estimates that there are two to four million Campylobacter infections per year, resulting in as many as 250 deaths each year in the United States. Furthermore, about one in a thousand Campylobacter infections leads to Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disease that can cause paralysis. Thus, the emergence of drug-resistant Campylobacter is a serious public health concern.
In fact, the use in poultry of fluoroquinolones, a precious class of antibiotics, led to the development of resistant Campylobacter strains. Before fluoroquinolones were approved for use in agriculture in the United States, no fluoroquinolone resistance was reported in people unless they had previously taken the drugs for illness or traveled to a country that permitted their use in agriculture. But after the antibiotics were approved for agricultural use, resistant strains began emerging in samples taken from both humans and poultry. The correlation of the emergence of resistance with the use in animal systems was important evidence that agricultural use was the culprit. The FDA recognized the seriousness of the threat and banned fluoroquinolones from veterinary use in September 2005.
Antimicrobial use in agriculture can also compromise human therapies when bacteria develop cross-resistance—when their resistance to one drug also makes them resistant to other, related drugs. This has happened in Europe with vancomycin, one of the drugs of last resort for treating certain life-threatening infections. Data suggest that rising levels of vancomycin-resistant bacteria in hospitals may have resulted from use in agriculture of avoparcin, a drug chemically related to vancomycin. Because avoparcin and vancomycin are similar in structure, bacteria resistant to avoparcin are resistant to vancomycin as well.
Similar phenomena are apparently occurring as a result of the use of antimicrobial drugs in the United States. The effectiveness of synercid, a drug of last resort for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant infections, is threatened because of the use of virginiamycin as a growth promoter in chickens and pigs in the United States. Virginiamycin is chemically related to synercid, and bacteria resistant to the one drug also appear to be resistant to the other.
While the links between animal agriculture and human disease are complicated and in need of additional study, evidence is strong enough for scientists and public health organizations to call for reduced use of antibiotics in agriculture. The CDC has concluded that, in the United States, antimicrobial use in food animals is the dominant source of antibiotic resistance among foodborne pathogens.
Keeping Drugs Useful, Keeping Meat Cheap
What can be done so that these drugs remain useful? Aren’t antibiotics necessary to preserve the health of the livestock? While some uses of antibiotics in livestock operations are a matter of animal health, other uses have an economic motive. Especially troubling is their use not to cure sick animals but to promote “feed efficiency,” that is, to increase the animal’s weight gain per unit of feed. These drugs are also regularly added to the feed and water of animals that are not sick in order to prevent diseases caused by overcrowded and unsanitary CAFO conditions. These nontherapeutic uses translate into relatively cheap meat prices at the grocery store.
But is this economic motive an essential use of these drugs? First, the economic advantage appears to be minimal. The National Research Council estimated that a ban on nontherapeutic use (that is, any use in livestock that are not sick) would increase per capita costs by about $5-10 per year. That is a price most people would willingly pay to preserve a robust arsenal of medicines against infectious disease.
Second, using antimicrobial drugs is not the only way to lower meat costs. The same report suggests that adopting other methods of maintaining animal health, comfort, and well-being could reduce drug use and cut costs. Such methods might include reducing overcrowding, controlling heat stress, providing vaccination to prevent disease, and using beneficial microbial cultures.
The Challenges of Reducing Antibiotic Use
Although reducing or eliminating nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics is a straightforward solution to the problem of resistance, it will be difficult to implement. Eliminating this use of antibiotics challenges the standard operating procedures of a large and powerful industry.
The nontherapeutic use of antibiotics is ingrained in livestock and poultry operations because producers believe that chickens, cows, and pigs—particularly those that are not healthy to begin with—gain weight faster when these drugs are added to their feed.
In addition, livestock producers have bought into the myth that bacteria that cause illness in humans develop resistance only in medical settings. While no one denies that unwise use of antibiotics in human medicine is a source of serious resistance problems, this view has prevented recognition of one of the best opportunities to cut back on these drugs—in nontherapeutic agricultural applications.
Agricultural use for growth promotion and prevention of diseases due to overcrowded CAFO conditions accounts for the vast majority of the antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States. This enormous amount of drugs is delivered to animals under conditions conducive to the development of resistance. Large numbers of similar animals are raised in CAFOs that characterize contemporary agriculture. Chicken houses, for example, can contain 50,000 birds. And the Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are about 11,000 operations with over 1,000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cattle, 2,500 hogs, or 30,000–125,000 chickens.
In such large operations, antibiotics are often delivered to animals in food and water over extended periods. Bacteria are constantly being exposed to the drugs and eliminated from the populations. It is hard to imagine how resistance would not develop under these circumstances. Indeed, industrial livestock systems are hog heaven for resistant bacteria.
What’s Next
The battle against emergence of antimicrobial resistance will take place on many fronts: in hospitals, in doctors’ and veterinarians’ offices, and on farms. The most sensible approach is to identify and reduce nonessential uses of antibiotics and reserve as many of these drugs as possible for wise use in human and veterinary medicine. Obvious nonessential uses, such as nontherapeutic use in livestock operations, should be the first target in the effort to save antibiotics.
The CDC and the World Health Organization have called for an end to the nontherapeutic use in animals of drugs that are used to treat human disease or that are related to such medicines.
Congress is considering a bill called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) that would ban the nontherapeutic agricultural use of certain antibiotics that are particularly valuable for treating human illness. Over 350 health, consumer, and environmental organizations nationwide, including the American Medical Association, support PAMTA. UCS expert Margaret Mellon testified at a congressional hearing in support of this legislation in July 2009, and UCS is collecting the names of organizations that endorse the bill.
In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced in July 2009 that the Obama administration supports ending nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock. The FDA announced that it will seek to end the use of clinically valuable antibiotics for growth promotion and feed efficiency uses and to restrict over-the-counter use of these antibiotics. UCS spoke out along with other organizations in support of this policy.
http://www.nrdc.org/food/saving-antibiotics.asp
Saving Antibiotics
What You Need to Know About Antibiotics Abuse on Farms
Feeding low levels of antibiotics to cows, pigs and chickens that aren’t even sick breeds “super bugs” — dangerous germs that are able to fight off antibiotics that spread to our communities and families.
Find out why these drugs are used on feedlots, the problems they pose and what you can do to keep you and your family healthy.
Why are antibiotics used on livestock animals?
Since the 1950s, it has become routine practice to add low levels of antibiotics to the feed or water of healthy poultry, cattle, and swine to promote faster growth and prevent infections that tend to occur when animals are housed in crowded, unsanitary, stressful conditions.
Why is the use of antibiotics in livestock a problem?
The unnecessary use of antibiotics in the livestock industry is a key culprit in the rise of drug-resistant bacteria that pose a growing public health risk.
By overusing antibiotics on industrial feedlots and feeding them to animals that don’t have bacterial infections we’re making the drugs doctors rely on to treat illnesses like pneumonia, strep throat, and childhood ear infections less effective.
Furthermore, we have few new antibiotics in the pipeline to replace those that are no longer effective, and many of them are more expensive or have greater side effects associated with them.
According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, almost 2 million Americans per year develop hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), resulting in 99,000 deaths, the vast majority of which are due to antibacterial (antibiotic)-resistant pathogens. MRSA alone kills more people (approximately 19,000) than HIV/AIDS. Although the number of these fatalities linked to livestock is not known, we do know that over 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are used in food animals (and the vast majority of this use is for animals that are not sick).
Drug-resistant infections are estimated to cost Americans up to $26 billion per year in additional healthcare costs. Those costs go up to as much as $36 billion a year when lost productivity and other factors are taken into account.
Is store-bought meat contaminated with superbugs?
Many studies show a multitude of resistant organisms on meat and poultry products purchased in grocery stores. For example, a recent study of meat and poultry from five U.S. cities found Staphylococcus aureus on 47 percent of samples. Ninety-six percent of those samples were resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 52 percent were multi-drug resistant.
Tests conducted by the FDA every year routinely show high levels of antibiotic resistant bacteria on retail meat. In 2010, almost 52 percent of chicken breasts tested were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant E. coli. Safe food handling practices are necessary to protect against exposure (see below).
How does farm-use of antibiotics contribute to drug-resistant diseases in people?
When farm animals receive antibiotics in doses too low to kill all the infectious bacteria in them, those bacteria that survive and flourish do so because they are resistant to the drug. As they multiply and interact with other bacteria, they pass on their resistance.
Bacteria can even share the traits that make them drug-resistant with other kinds of bacteria, leading to widespread drug-resistance and the creation of bacterial super-bugs.
How do these drug-resistant bacteria spread?
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria generated on industrial feedlots spread out in a number of ways:
By food: As noted above, testing of meat found in retail stores typically finds drug-resistant bacteria on meat and poultry products. Bacteria on food are carried into the kitchen where other foods can be cross-contaminated by contact with infected knives, cutting boards, our hands and other surfaces. We can then spread these bacteria to others.
By air and water: Drug-resistant bacteria have been found in drinking water near hog facilities in three states and have been detected in the air downwind from industrial swine facilities.
By livestock workers: Those who work in livestock operations can accidentally carry drug-resistant bacteria in their clothing and on their bodies, unwittingly passing them on to their families, friends, and communities.
What are other countries doing?
Many European countries stopped using penicillin, streptomycin, and tetracyclines to promote faster growth in animals in the mid-1970s. This policy was expanded to other medically important antibiotics in the 1990s and to all antimicrobial growth promoters across the European Union in 2006 (although “disease prevention” uses are still permitted with a prescription).
Denmark, the world’s largest exporter of pork has gone further and restricts antibiotic uses for both growth promotion and to compensate for diseases caused by crowded, unsanitary feedlot conditions. Since the late 1990s, Danish pork producers achieved a 60 percent reduction of antibiotic use, substantially reducing incidence of antibiotic bacteria in feedlots and on meat. This transition was successful economically, with pork production actually increasing 50 percent and costs going up only by about 1 percent. Producers achieved these outcomes by adopting better animal management practices to improve sanitation and reduce animal stress, among others.
What can be done?
In May 2011, NRDC filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration to finally end the use of antibiotics in animal feed. We have won two decisions against the FDA, but the FDA continues to stall and has appealed one of the decisions already. We continue to press the fight in court. But while NRDC is seeking to end this abuse of antibiotics once and for all, you can take the following steps to protect youself:
Prepare foods safely at home — follow the food-safety handling tips in our grilling guide.
When shopping for meat, look for these labels that certify products come from farms that only use antibiotics on animals to cure infections and not for any other “non-therapeutic” uses:
USDA Certified Organic
American Grassfed Certified
Animal Welfare Approved
Certified Humane
You may also want to look for labels like “No Antibiotics Administered” or “Raised Without Antibiotics”, especially if they are USDA process verified. CAUTION: Even meat labeled “Organic” or “No Antibiotics Administered” can be contaminated with antibiotic resistant bacteria, so you’ll still need to follow the safe handling practices above.
Urge your representative to support the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA).
LINK TO INFORMATION PUBISHED IN 2008.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/02/20/35404.aspx
It’s bad enough when pathogenic bacteria work their way into the animal food supply.
Here’s a related problem that has recently attracted scientists’ attention: some of the pathogens may become resistant to the antimicrobials that are used to fight animal disease, and that might lead to more human resistance to the benefits of antibiotics.
“We’re speculating that there may be a possibility of a link,” said Daniel Fung, a food science professor at Kansas State University who led research into the question for the Food Safety Consortium. “We are looking at it from the food scientist’s standpoint. The resistant cultures may get into the food supply and may get into human beings. But those are speculations only.”
The work was done by Maggie Hanfelt and Mindi Russell under the direction of Fung and KSU College of Veterinary Medicine professionals.
Fung’s research group targeted lagoons in Midwestern cattle feedlots because of concern over antimicrobial-resistant microbes being transferred into the food supply through water sources. In the feedlots, Fung explained, antimicrobials are used to treat sick food-producing animals such as cattle, poultry and swine.
Antimicrobials are also used to prevent disease and to promote growth.
The drawback, Fung said, is that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters appears to create large reservoirs of resistance to antibiotics in animals. That resistance could be transferred to humans who consume the food from those animals.
The KSU group looked at two types of feedlots: natural feedlots, which don’t use antimicrobials in the cattle, and commercial feedlots, which use the antibiotics. Tests in the feedlots’ lagoon water were conducted to measure the presence of E. coli and Enterobacter. The results consistently showed that the pathogens were more prevalent in the feedlot lagoons where the antibiotics were used.
Fung emphasized that the study is a preliminary one that raises questions. Veterinary medicine researchers are also interested in the situation and are starting to study gene pools and to track the resistant genes in the environment.
The studies of the lagoons showed that although those feedlots using antibiotics had higher rates of resistance to pathogenic bacteria, the natural feedlots still recorded instances of resistance. That’s not unexpected, Fung said.
“That may be because of the naturally resistant organisms already in the environment anyway,” Fung said. “They would have some antibiotic resistance because of the organisms around the environment.”
Because antibiotics are used in the commercial feedlots, Fung said, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have more antibiotic-resistant cultures than the natural feedlots. But natural feedlots also use antibiotics when animals become ill.
“The vet school will do a lot more on this subject,” Fung said. “If we find out something really interesting that can relate to food safety directly, then we’ll do some more work.
In any case, it’s still important to find the answers because of the implications for antibiotic resistance in humans, Fung said.
“If humans receive antimicrobial cultures in their system and if they’re sick from something, then the antibiotics will not be able to treat human beings. There are many antimicrobials in cultures in hospitals and places like that. And there aren’t too many antibiotics discovered in the past 20 years.”
http://www.uark.edu/
Reducing the Use of Antibiotics Across America’s Feedlots 31 JULY 2012
Last week Judge Theodore H. Katz of the Southern District of New York ordered the F.D.A. to alert livestock growers to stop using two popular classes of antibiotics, penacillins and tetracyclines, to promote growth in their animals. In this ruling, manufacturers of these drugs are required to prove that the use of their drugs in livestock doesn’t contribute to the development of drug-resistant bacteria and that the drugs are safe for human consumption. If proven, these drugs can continue to be used.
This ruling is resultant of a 35-year old proposal to restrict antibiotic use in livestock once evidence was found in the 1970s that overuse of such antibiotics led to deadly infections in livestock that became resistant to treatment.
According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, “about 80 percent of all antibiotics in America are used in livestock in order to speed up their growth or preempt diseases caught from cramped living conditions.”
Common antibiotics are intended to be life saving medicines, and when they are misused for the purpose of fattening up our pigs, cattle, and chickens before slaughter they wind up posing a risk to our body’s abilities to ward off bacteria. Bacteria are now developing resistance faster than we’re inventing new medicines to fight them, creating dangerous antibiotic-resistant “superbugs”.
Many people are skeptical that this ruling will not change the overall usage levels of antibiotics in US feedlots because it only prohibits antibiotic use to promote growth while it does not prohibit antibiotic use for disease prevention. Farmers and ranchers now only need to claim they are using them for the latter of the two.
Although this ruling may be a small step to addressing this problem, we cannot forget our purchasing power as consumers to affect the livestock industry. Every dollar we spend on antibiotic- and hormone- free meat, milk, or dairy products is a vote towards tightening restrictions on farmers and ranchers in their over-use of antibiotics.
AAN PRO VOERKRAAL AANHANGERS EN JAN PUBLIEK.
Gebruik van voerkrale is ‘n onnatuurlike manier van boerdery. Dit bied tydelike oplossing, nie ‘n volhoubare manier van boerdery nie.
Dit wat God deur die natuur gegee het is onverbeterlik. God se werk kan nie verbeter word deur die mens en die wetenskap nie. Goeie voorbeel is GMO mielies wat aangepas is vir Roundup gebruik. Wonderlik in die begin totdat die onkruid begin weerstandig word. GMO tegnologie se koste maak dit nie volhoubaar om te boer nie.
Dieselfde argumente met voerkrale. Dieresiekte raak weerstandig teen Antibitika gebruik. Die bees se verteringstelsel is nie ontwerp om soveel grane te verteer nie. Dit veroorsaak weerstandige E.coli infeksies wat oorgedra word op die vleis. Die Suid Afrikaanse voerkrale word op die Amerikaanse model geskoei. Daar lei antibiotika weerstandige E.coli dat mense doodgaan oor vleis wat E.coli besmet is – 1000de tonne vleis moet vernietig word.
Dus voerkraal is ‘n korttermyn boerdery metode – mens kan nie teen die natuur baklei nie. Koste om vleis skoon te maak maak die prys van vleis baie hoog en onbekostigbaar duur.
‘n Mens kan nie ‘n beter rpoduk gee as wat die natuur gee nie. Die natuur is soos God dit ontwerp het om te wees. Gesond en natuurlik, noie vol antibiotika en ander middels nie.
Gee ‘n lys van middels wat in voerkrale gebruik word, sodat mense hulle kan vergewis van dit wat in hulle kosproduksie gebruik word. Dan kan studies onderneem word om die veiligheid te bepaal, asook die langtermyn effek kan gemeet word en of dit lei tot weerstandige siekte.
‘n Volhoubare manier van boerdery is om vee te verbou as vrylopende diere op gras, dit waarvoor hulle verteringstelsel ontwerp voor is.
Byvoorbaat dank.
Tommie
youtube cow feed chocolate cowman1970
plenty of videos of cows eating chocolate
We need to make more food from less land, that requires science and technology. Organic food is nice for wealthy people but it is not possible to feed a growing population.
Think about it, if we make more food from less land that opens up more land for reserves and nature. Im sorry but organics is not the solution. I have nothing against it and its great to teach school kids life skills etc. using organic farming but we need pragmatic solutions using technology on a large (and I hate to say it) industrial scale.
Yes there are many problems with the current method of industrial farming and negative externalities are not correctly being incorporated into the price but there is a huge incentive to find scientific solutions that reduce these externalities while increasing yield. A solution of this nature would be a strong competitive advantage.
Next you going to be telling me homoeopathy is better than pharmaceuticals…
Steve I can take 200 acres and put it in a 2,000sf barn and grow feed year around with a bit of water and minimal light. How about that? or would you like to modern food like the replicator from Star Trek?????? guess you like farmed salmon… or KFC ‘white meat’ cuz it can’t be called CHICKEN. Science can grow me a new ear but not my dinner
Dear Trevor
Are you looking for something which is aesthetically pleasing ( which is a subjective opinion ) or something that is safe , nutritionally wholesome and grown using the best principals of stockmanship : you are right , it really is a no brainer .
Willem Wethmar
Chalmar Beef
The picture of the cows in the feedlot looks unnatural. The cows in the grapevine looks aesthetically pleasing to the human eye. its a no brainer
Dear Angus
Regarding points 1 to 5
1 How much feedlot manure have you composted . I have successfully composted alot.
2 .Antibiotic resistance in humans is caused by people not completeing their courses as prescribed by the doctor or doctors prescribing antibiotics for everythig from a runny nose to a dry throat . By the way : all beef should be antibiotic free at slaughter by law .
3. The GMO grain debate is unfortunately a political one and not one of food safety . How does Europe protect it farmers from cheaper imports from the USA : ban GMO because it is apparently bad . You have unfortunately been conned by people driving other agendas than food safety .
4. The feedlot surface is cleaned regularly ( as is evident in your picture ) and kept injury free for the cattle . No hazards to the cattle like getting ensnared in wire like the cattle in the picture of your farming operation .
5. When maize is milled for maize meal ( for people ) 30 % of the maize is left over which people do not eat : very nutritious for cattle , When we mill wheat for flour wheat bran is left also nutritious for catlle . There are many examples of this . What do you want to have happen with these products : taken to the local land fill or rather used productively to produce healthy and wholesome beef .
In previous blogs you stated that feedlots feed bread , pasta . chocolate etc . Where did that come from because I am mystified .
Being an intelligent person you most probably knew all of the above but just failed to mention it in your endevours to market your product ..
Regards
Willem Wethmar
Director : Feedlots
Chalmar Beef
Could not agree with you more Willem, well said. Lets not get the wool pulled over our eyes!