Final answer:
Corn-fed cattle are usually cheaper to raise due to government subsidies for corn, resulting in faster growth for market. Conversely, grass-fed cattle provide healthier, tastier beef and have less environmental impact, though at a higher cost. These practices each have distinct impacts on sustainability, economy, and consumer preferences.
Step-by-step explanation:
The decision between raising corn fed cattle and free range, grass fed cattle is influenced by various driving forces. The economic viability is a significant factor, with corn-fed cattle typically being cheaper to raise due to government policies that subsidize corn production, making corn-based feed less expensive. As a result, feedlots can quickly fatten cattle for slaughter. On the other hand, free-range, grass-fed cattle are seen as a more sustainable and environmentally friendly option. This method produces healthier beef that is considered better tasting and commands higher market prices, though it requires more land and resources than corn-fed operations.
Free-range cattle was once the norm, but with the development of barbed wire and expansion of eastern businessmen into the cattle industry, large commercial feedlots have become a standard method of cattle raising, particularly in areas unsuitable for more profitable agriculture. Advances in transportation and meat processing technologies also favored concentrated, large-scale operations. Despite the economic advantages of corn-fed cattle, sustainability concerns are increasing interest in grass-fed beef. Programs like those in Brazil for sustainable ranch management are being developed, reducing the environmental impact of cattle ranching. These changes reflect a market that increasingly values the environmental impact of food production.