Whether it's sawdust, walnut husks, corn, grains, lard, or even other cows, someone in the past 100 years has probably advocated feeding it to cows. That's at least what I remember as one of the takeaway messages when I took ruminant nutrition and digestion.

So, I'm not at all surprised that he can comb through the literature and find people suggesting that cows be fed corn a very long time ago. But it seems like a bit of a logical leap to use a few examples in the literature to refute claims like this:

“Before WW II, most Americans had never eaten corn-fed beef.”

"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."

McWilliams would be advised to do the same. All he listed were people advocating the use of corn to feed cows. He gave no evidence that cows actually were being fed grain at those time. In fact he's doing exactly what he accuses grass advocates of doing, just the opposite argument.

Actually, you're incorrect. He did not just list people only advocating the use of corn. The titles were advocating the use of corn, but if you actually look at some the references you can see that cows were not being grass fed.

Quote from the 1911 book that he cites: "Corn Grain This grain is used very extensively in American dairy rations because it may be successfully grown in sections of the United States. It is relished by cattle. It high in carbohydrates and when supplemented feed to complete the ration the latter must roughage and be nitrogenous in character. When grain is fed some of it passes through the animal for this reason it is well to grind it and feed it as corn meal.

For the cattle that are eaten (non-dairy), Snapped Corn is the "most popular feed in the west" and "Corn meal seems to be favored by Eastern feeders"

You're correct, I read the reference excerpts and took their literal implications.

Also pointed out in the comments is the fact that "fodder corn" or "stalks of Indian corn" (from two of the cited quoted) actually refer to the entire corn plant, i.e. a grass.

The 1911 book quotes "corn (grain)" as being "used very extensively" for dairy cows, and lists it separately from "corn and cob meal" and "ground corn, cob, and shuck meal"? This does not sound like the grass.

However, it does say that the "unhusked ear" broken from the stalk is the most popular feed in the West for fattening cattle (those that are eaten) and "Corn Meal" is favored in the East.

The 1886 and 1822 quotes look like they are talking about using the whole plant, not just feeding animals the ears or grain.

Not really related to your comment, but corn is actually a grass (grasses are a taxonomic group within the plants), so it would be technically accurate (albeit misleading) to say that a cow fed nothing but corn is also "grass fed."

You make some good points, and it's probably around the late 1800s that the move to corn grain became more common. I should note also that studies clearly show health benefits of "grass"-fed corn (higher Omega 3s for example).

It's true corn is a grass. Actually, all true grains are grasses, I believe, and farmers are allowed to feed a percentage of grain crops and still call their animals "grass fed" if they feed the young sprouts (pre-seed), but the FDA (or USDA?) doesn't allow them to call it grass-fed otherwise.

I wonder what term could be used to replace "grass-fed" that would more specifically define what is meant.

If I was an evil person working for the marketing department of an evil mega-factory-farm, I would hire you right this instant on the basis of that last comment alone. Evil genius.

The author misses the point. The problem isn't the corn but rather the quantity of corn that's fed to cows. There weren't antibiotics to give cows to deal with the side effects of too much corn so they didn't give it to them in the quantities they do today.

I'm fine with giving cows some corn because well it does taste better but their feed really shouldn't contain so much corn. Most of the small ranchers I know give their cows some corn but not a huge amount or anything.

Perhaps you miss the author's point: he doesn't say corn fed beef is better, only that the claim that no cows were fed corn until 60 years ago is a lie.

Pointing out a hole in X's argument doesn't mean you disagree with X. You could well agree with X, but prefer that it be supported by non-fallacious arguments.

Or maybe everyone is just using imprecise language here. When I think of corn fed beef I think of cows being fed feed that's 60-80% corn. When I think of grass fed beef I think of cows that eat enough grass that they at least don't need antibiotics to live longer to go to slaughter.

Um... antibiotics don't treat the "side effects of too much corn" (?!). They're given to animals to prevent (or sometimes treat, but usually just to prevent) bacterial infections that are spread between animals being kept in otherwise infection-prone environments.

It's true that in modern farms "grass fed" is usually synomymous with "pasture-kept", where the animals spend time wandering with lots of space instead of crushed against each other at feeding troughs. So to some extent corn-feeding probably correlates with infection rates, I guess.

But just to be clear: eating corn doesn't make you sick. It's not true for people and it's not true for cows. :)

Corn-fed cows develop acidosis, which causes ulcers in their rumen. The cows are then open to a host of infections. Antibiotics treat that side effect of too much corn.