Photo: JelleS On the PBS website for the muckraking documentary King Corn-a film that roundly attacks industrial agriculture-the following declaration is made: “Before WW II, most Americans had never eaten corn-fed beef.” This claim, which has become a mantra in sustainable agriculture, is more often than not dispatched to rally support for grass-fed beef-a supposedly healthier and more environmentally sound way to feed cattle-which is to say, in accordance with the rhythms of nature rather than the time clock of industry.
Just a brief sample:
- Sustainabletable.org: “Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed.”
- Daily Mail: “Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed…”
- Grasslandbeef.com: “Originally, all cattle were grass-fed…”
- TreeHugger.com: “All cattle were grass fed until about 60 years ago…”
- Stopfactoryfarms.org: “In the past, all beef was grass-fed beef…”
Now, it’s hardly my intention to wade into the crossfire of the grass- v. grain-fed debate (although I suspect that’ll be inevitable). Instead, I simply want to point out that any claim to cows eating corn being a recent development is, to say the least, deeply suspect.
Let’s rewind to the past:
- “Corn is the best grain feed for fattening cattle.” (James Edward Halligan, Elementary Treatise on Stock Feeds and Feeding, 1911, p. 207.)
- “I believe that corn is the best feed for cattle and hogs…” (W.H. Freeman, Iowa Yearbook of Agriculture, 1904, p. 345.)
- “Green fodder corn is the best feed for milk cows…” (C.Z. Yoder, Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, 1886, p. 400.)
- “I doubt not that ground or boiled corn is best for cattle…” (Hazel Ridge, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents, 1853, p. 319.)
- “The fattening [of cattle] should be promoted by feeding them morning and evening with stalks of Indian corn.” (Samuel Deane, The New England Farmer, 1822, p. 63.)
Once again, I’m not arguing that the grass-fed alternative isn’t a viable response to the problems of factory farming grain-fed cows. I’m only suggesting to advocates of the grass-fed option that, if they feel so compelled to draw on the past to support the present, they should start by providing some footnotes. The romance of a pasture-fed past will only take the story so far.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It should be noted that stalks of corn, also called silage, bear a greater resemblance to grass than to anything we would think of as “corn”. Our few cows prefer corn silage to almost anything else we feed throughout the year.
Mark McKenna raises a valid point.
The recommendations of experts don’t necessarily conform with practice.
I’m 100% in the cows should eat grass and rarely if ever corn camp, but it consistently bothers me when people make emotional appeals to the past or tradition to bolster their argument.
Why does it matter what people did in the past? There is a lot of ignorance in historical practices. It should be good enough that cows that a pasture raised have far fewer problems and are considerably cheaper to raise than feedlot cattle (grass is free, don’t need antibiotics, etc.)
Okay, you’ve shown that not ALL cattle was grass fed prior to WWII. But, were most cattle mostly grass fed? Your quotes don’t speak to that issue. If most cattle were mostly grass fed, then I don’t really think it’s a big deal that the proponents are exaggerating slightly.
The number we’re after isn’t number of articles discussin grass vs. corn feedstock, but the historical proportion of meat consumption that came from grass-based vs. seed (corn)-based food chains.
While I’m sure some corn was used in the 19th century, it would have been extremely expensive without the benefit of modern farming methods: grass grows on its own, whereas agricultural corn, in addition to needing to be harvested, is also 100% dependent on human intervention to reproduce. Keep in mind, in 1900, 41% of the American workforce was employed in agriculture, vs. less than 2% today:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm
That means we’ve gotten 2000% more efficient at feeding ourselves (which includes feeding our livestock).
And really that whole discussion is less relevant that the discussion of health benefits to humans of grass-based vs. seed-based food chains. At this point, it’s pretty incontrovertible that grass is better for us. This is one of the better articles I’ve read on the topic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29104695/
The claim made by the sustainable agriculture groups is that “ALL beef was grass-fed”. We don’t need percentages to tell us that that statement is inaccurate.
People really need to more careful with their phrasing. All that advocates of factory farming need to do is prove that this one statement is a lie, and using the principle of the poisoned well, ignore all other statements made by them.
Just a little bit can go a long way.
I prefer corn fed beef. It tastes better. Less tough. That’s the bottom line to me. It may be more helpful to preserve corn-fed beef but improve farming and slaughter practices.
Will the author of this muckraking post please provide some data instead of a few Googled quotes? As many has pointed out, how much of a cow’s diet was corn before WWII versus after? If Mr. McWilliams is implying that corn was a major food source for cows prior to WWII, and he is correct, does this mean that grass-fed cows aren’t superior to corn-fed ones?