According to the USDA, in 2007 an average American ate 170 pounds of meat (chicken, beef and pork) per year, about 50 pounds more than the average per capita consumption in 1955.

 According to a study at Johns Hopkins University, this increase in meat consumption is a result of the cycle between producers providing artificially cheap meat and consumers continually demanding a supply. However, it is uncertain whether meat production in this quantity is healthy for humans or for the environment.  

Beef production is one of the most controversial production methods because of  its high popularity in America and its large carbon footprint. The two processes used in beef production – conventional and grass-fed production – are very different in terms of nutritional value, food safety, and environmental impact.

The Processes

The conventional process of beef production includes both small farmers and conventional feedlots.  Small farmers generally raise cattle from birth until weaning or about age seven to eight months.  According to Matt Poore, head of the beef unit at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems and a professor in the animal science department, North Carolina is the home to 17,300 of these farmers who raise approximately 375,000 cattle at any given time. 

When these cattle are ready for processing, they are shipped to feedlots across the country where for a few weeks they are fed diets rich in corn before being sent to a slaughterhouse to be processed for beef.  

Anahid Behrouzi, a senior in civil engineering, went on a tour of an “all-natural” dairy farm in Indiana, where the ultimate destination of the cattle was a slaughterhouse.  

“The cows were kept in a very cramped barn, left to stand in their own fecal matter and weren’t allowed to graze though there were open fields outside,” Behrouzi said.  

Behrouzi also said that the owners of the farm seemed proud of themselves because they kept the cattle on an all-natural diet consisting of grains mixed with vitamin powder. 

“If this is good production, what does bad production look like?” Behrouzi said. 

At the slaughterhouse, packaged meat is mass produced, so beef from different cows is combined into large grinders and then formed by the many workers into patties and ground beef.

In opposition to the conventional method of beef production is the local method, which is heralded as being sustainable and better for both cows and humans.

In this method of production, cows are raised from birth through weaning by the same farmer. This allows for more closely watched cattle, possibly meaning a higher quality of care since the farmer has a day-to-day relationship with his or her herd. In addition to better care, these cows are grass fed and free to roam their designated pastures.

Generally, this way of raising cattle helps develop them more slowly than thtte conventional way, which fosters quick growth though a diet rich in corn — corn is more energy (calorie) dense than grass, leading to faster weight gain.

Cattle that are grass-fed and raised locally are processed by being sent to a processing unit, cut and ground individually versus mass. This method of processing greatly reduces the risk of contamination.

Nutritional Value

The main difference between nutritional values of grass-fed beef versus corn-fed beef has to do with the fat concentration. Grass-fed cattle, in general, are leaner than corn-fed because of the fatty acids found in the corn oil.

One major reason that this is important, aside from animal treatment issues that accompany each method, is that since consumers commonly overindulge in beef by eating more than what’s suggested, it is dangerous for cardiac health to eat meat high in fat.

According to Poore, beef should be consumed in quantities of about four to six ounces per serving several times per week; however, quite commonly this is surpassed by way of consumers eating hamburgers, steaks, stews and roasts every day, several times a day. 

As a result of the high saturated fat content of beef, this type of diet compromises cardiac health and increases obesity; however, when eaten in moderation, the difference between fatty acids and fat content in corn-fed versus grass-fed cattle is trivial.

Food Safety

According to an article in The New York Times highlighting a case of E. coli that caused the paralysis of Stephanie Smith in 2007, E. coli sickens tens of thousands of people per year.  Smith’s strain of O157:H7 E. coli was violent, changing the body and mindset of a healthy, 22-year-old dance teacher into a paralyzed woman who has lost confidence in the American food system.  

Her store-bought hamburger patty contained traces of meat from four different factories in the U.S. and Uruguay. As a result of this conventional method, it took some time to track down where the E. coli originated, time that the infected beef should not have been sitting on shelves in the supermarket. 

In terms of food safety, local production is seen as the better option because E. coli can be traced down to the cow it was produced from, allowing for any bacteria to be tracked and recalled more accurately.

The conventional method, which uses feedlots, also increases the risk of E. coli infection. A feedlot is a type of animal feeding operation used for finishing cattle before beef production.  It can house thousands of densely packed cattle on a small area of land. The high density of fecal waste increases the chances of E. coli contaminating the meat because cows are literally standing in their own waste, which is then transported to the slaughter house via their hides and feet as the waste is caked on.

Environmental Impact

Both types of cattle production have their arguments in terms of environmental impact, but it is up to the consumer to ultimately choose which production type to demand. A proponent of the conventional system would argue that the feedlot cattle emit less methane, a greenhouse gas said to contribute to global warming. 

However, that may be misleading because it isn’t that grass-fed cows produce more methane necessarily, it is that they spend more time alive on the farm as they grow at a slower pace versus the fast growing feedlot cattle. By the numbers grass-fed cows may produce more methane; however, it is based on the fact that they live longer before being slaughtered.

Water quality is another issue concerned with beef production and corn-fed cattle contribute heavily because of the high amount of nutrients found in relatively small feedlot areas. This is a problem when storms come through because runoff from these feedlots leach high levels of bacteria and nutrients, such as nitrogen, into the water table, contaminating local drinking water.

The customer is always right

Corn-fed and grass-fed cattle both affect the environment, nutrition and food safety. These issues are complex and there is not always a right answer.  

 ”As with most issues, the real answer is in the middle,” Poore said. 

Food production cannot be completely turned around and fixed within a day, nor is it sustainable the way it is at present, but consumer demand is a powerful thing. 

The take-home message is that consumers should know where their food comes from and research the methods used to produce their food. It is not enough to trust that food is produced with the consumer in mind when there are other factors such as profit and efficiency that may play a larger role in decision-making. 

Nash Yielding, a junior in science, technology and society, focuses on the connections between our thoughts and actions. 

“Today more than ever, we have the capacity to understand how everything we do is embedded in a larger network of our friends, families and communities, and how our thoughts and actions influence and are shaped by others,” Yielding said. 

Consumers must educate themselves on important food issues and vote for a change in the food production system by using their dollars to buy responsibly.