I would like to correct the verbiage in the article in Nov. 12, The Citizen on grass and grass-fed beef.

The article indicated that people would have to be convinced to give up quality to support the more

sustainable practice of feeding cattle what they were supposed to eat:

grass.

This is incorrect.

Grass-fed beef is a higher quality food source in every respect except for the higher fat content that does, admittedly, appeal to humans much in the same way a Snickers bar is more appealing than an apple.

Let's not confuse bad habits with quality.

Cattle have a digestive system that was meant to process cellulose (grass) and when these animals are finished on corn, they have to be given antibiotics so they don't get sick before judgment day.

The stress that these animals endure gorging themselves on corn for the last six months of their lives, basically produces sickly, although very tasty, meat.

Grass-fed meat does require some getting used to taste-wise, but it is delicious and actually a good food source as opposed to corn-fed meat that is bad for you.

Educated consumers world-wide are paying a premium for higher quality, grass-fed beef, pastured pork and free-range poultry products.

Google “grass fed” or “pastured” and get the facts.

This is a very important issue and probably should have been given

priority over the Maroons on the front page.

Joe Lonsky

Genoa