#corn-fed beef

[maneatingbadger]

We've come to think of 'corn-fed' as some kind of old-fashioned virtue, which it may well be when you're referring to Midwestern children, but feeding large quantities of corn to cows for the greater part of their lives is a practice neither particularly old nor virtuous. Its chief advantage is that cows fed corn, a compact source of caloric energy, get fat quickly; their flesh also marbles well, giving it a taste and texture American consumers have come to like.Yet this corn-fed meat is demonstrably less healthy for us, since it contains more saturated fat and less omega-3 fatty acids than the meat of animals fed grass. A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with corn-fed beef. (Modern-day hunter-gatherers who subsist on wild meat don't have our rates of heart disease.) In the same way ruminants are ill adapted to eating corn, humans in turn may be poorly adapted to eating ruminants that eat corn. Yet the USDA's grading system has been designed to reward marbling (a more appealing term than 'intramuscular fat,' which is what it is) and thus the feeding of corn to cattle. Indeed, corn has become so deeply ingrained in the whole system of producing beef in America that whenever I raised any questions about it among ranchers or feed-lot operators or animal scientists, people looked at me as if I'd just arrived from another planet. (Or perhaps from Argentina, where excellent steaks are produced on nothing but grass.) The economic logic behind corn is unassailable, and on a factory farm there is no other kind. Calories are calories, and corn is the cheapest, most convenient source of calories on the market. Of course, it was the same industrial logic—protein is protein—that made feeding rendered cow parts back to cows seem like a sensible thing to do, until scientists figured out that this practice was spreading bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), more commonly known as mad cow disease. Rendered bovine meat and bonemeal represented the cheapest, most convenient way of satisfying a cow's protein requirement (never mind these animals were herbivores by evolution) and so appeared on the daily menus of Poky and most other feedyards until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the practice in 1997. We now understand that while at a reductive, molecular level protein may indeed be protein, at an ecological or species level, this isn't quite true. As cannibal tribes have discovered, eating the flesh of one's own species carries special risks of infection. Kuru, a disease bearing a striking resemblance to BSE, spread among New Guinea tribesmen who ritually ate the brains of their dead kin. Some evolutionary biologists believe that evolution selected against cannibalism as a way to avoid such infections; animals' aversion to their own feces, and the carcasses of their species, may represent a similar strategy. Through natural selection animals have developed a set of hygiene rules, functioning much like taboos. One of the most troubling things about factory farms is how cavalierly they flout these evolutionary rules, forcing animals to overcome deeply ingrained aversions. We make them trade their instincts for antibiotics. Though the industrial logic that made feeding cattle to cattle seem like a good idea has been thrown into doubt by mad cow disease, I was surprised to learn it hadn't been discarded. The FDA ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants makes an exception for blood products and fat; my steer will probably dine on beef tallow recycled from the very slaughterhouse he's heading to in June. ('Fat is fat,' the feedlot manager shrugged, when I raised an eyebrow.) Though Poky doesn't do it, the rules still permit feedlots to feed nonruminant animal protein to ruminants. Feather meal and chicken litter (that is, bedding, feces, and discarded bits of feed) are accepted cattle feeds, as are chicken, fish, and pig meal. Some public health experts worry that since the bovine meat and bonemeal that cows used to eat is now being fed to chickens, pigs, and fish, infectious prions could find their way back into cattle when they're fed the protein of the animals that have been eating them.

Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

[maneatingbadger]

Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and for half a century now the industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef animal's allotted span on earth. 'In my grandfather's time, cows were four or five years old at slaughter,' Rich explained. 'In the fifties, when my father was ranching, it was two or three years old. Now we get there at fourteen to sixteen months.' Fast food, indeed. What gets a steer from 80 to 1,100 pounds in fourteen months is tremendous quantities of corn, protein and fat supplements, and an arsenal of new drugs. Weaning marks the fateful moment when the natural, evolutionary logic represented by a ruminant grazing on grass bumps up against the industrial logic that will propel the animal on the rest of its swift journey to a wholesale box of beef. This industrial logic is rational and even irresistible—after all, it has succeeded in making beef everyday fare for millions of people for whom it once represented a luxury. And yet the further you follow it, the more likely you are to begin wondering if that rational logic might not also be completely mad.

Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

[ag4front-blog]

Is grass-finished beef healthier for me?

I get this question a lot. “Are your cattle fed grass or grain?” The question that usually accompanies this is, “Isn’t grass-fed beef healthier?” One common misperception with meat-buying is that organic, natural or grass-fed beef are healthier for me. No matter what type of beef food-eaters choose, they can be confident all types of beef can be included in a healthy diet. All beef has eight…

View On WordPress

[ag4front-blog]

Corn-fed beef is a nutritious friend to environment

Which is the better beef: grass-fed or corn-fed? More than ever before, consumers have a lot of questions about their food, and beef is no exception. They see cattle grazing in the fields and they see cattle in feedlots, but they don't understand the difference.

In response to Erin Duerr's column ("From Scratch: Try natural, grass-fed beef for your meals," LJS, Aug. 4), I'm here to tell you that both types of beef production exist because of consumer choice.

Growing up on a cow/calf ranch, I've seen both sides of beef production. I now work on behalf of Nebraska's corn farmers representing the livestock industry, as well as running seedstock cattle of my own.

It is important to know that most all cattle are raised and spend most of their lives on range or pasture conditions eating grass from the time they are born until they are 12 to 18 months of age. Then, depending on how the feeder cattle are marketed, they are moved to a feedlot and usually separated into groups of 100 where they live in pens that allow about 125 to 250 square feet of room per animal. Cattle usually spend four to six months in a feedlot, during which they are fed a nutritionally formulated ration of corn and/or silage, hay and distillers grains.

On the other hand, some ranchers may prefer to finish their feeder cattle on grass. Also called free-range, grass-finished cattle eat only a grass and forage-based diet throughout their whole lifespan. Breeding stock, or cows and bulls, live their entire lives on pasture, and some are fed grains additionally.

So what really is the difference? Duerr mentions the cost, the nutritional value and the impact on the environment. First, the cost of corn-fed beef, which also is called conventional or modern beef production, is less expensive because beef are fed for a shorter, more efficient period. The modern beef production system also provides a year-round supply of safe, wholesome and nutritious beef at an affordable price for consumers around the world. Grass-fed beef takes longer to reach a finished age, thus incurring more expenses for the rancher.

Second, the nutritional value. There are 29 cuts of beef that meet government guidelines for lean. This is true whether the beef is produced conventionally or as part of an organic, natural or grass-fed program. Grass-finished beef contains slightly more omega-3 fatty acids (less than one-tenth of a gram more per 3.5 ounces), but no specific type of beef is considered a primary source for omega-3s. Grass-finished beef also can provide more conjugated linoleic acid than other beef. CLA is a polyunsaturated fatty acid that health professionals believe has cancer fighting properties; however, it is not clear whether there is a health benefit in this difference. No matter what type of beef consumers choose, they can be confident all types of beef can be included in a healthy diet.

Third, the impact on the environment. Erin gives no reference when she states grass-fed beef is better for the environment. However, according to a report released by the Hudson Institute's Center For Global Food Issues, pound-for-pound, beef produced in a modern beef production system generates 40 percent less greenhouse gas emissions and uses two-thirds less land than beef produced using organic and grass-fed production systems.

Additionally, animal agriculture contributes minimally to the production of total greenhouse gases in the United States. Cattle (whether grass-fed or corn-fed) naturally produce methane, a greenhouse gas, but according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the entire U.S. agricultural sector contributed only 6.4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006.

So here's the wholesome on your wholesome beef: The most important point is that consumers have a choice to what they eat. Beef producers in Nebraska and across the United States are producing a safe, wholesome and nutritious beef product, whether it be corn-fed or grass-fed, to give consumers the choice in their eating lifestyles.

The fact is, in order to meet the demand of a growing world, which is expected to increase to a population of

9 billion by the year 2050, modern beef production is needed to feed the world this powerful protein. If all beef was grass-finished, there wouldn't be enough land to produce the amount of beef we do now with modern beef production, much less produce it at the same quantity year-round.

You have a choice at the grocery store because of the great beef ranchers such as the ones we have here in Nebraska. There is no other state better situated for beef production than Nebraska, with accessibility to land and feed. That's not only great for the consumers of beef, it's great for Nebraska's economic engine: agriculture.

[ag4front-blog]

The kindest cut of meat?

“As Americans plan their Independence Day barbecues,  they should skip the tony sirloins and chops, and opt for what can be the most sustainable, economical, gastronomically flexible and morally responsible cut of meat: ground.” – NY Times Whoa…back that up. Wasn’t ground beef being slandered as “pink slime” a few months ago and now is being praised? I certainly don’t mind beef being promoted – especially in a news source such as the New York Times – but why are they putting one type of beef over another? That is confusing to people! In this recent opinion article in the New York Times (notice opinion), the authors lead astray their readers – almost so much that consumers might question their validity. I read about this on Facebook, then received an email from Nourishing the Planet (really not sure where they got my personal email) to “declare my food independence this 4th of July” by eating hamburger from small-scale, diversified livestock farmers to protect the environment. My family’s beef You know what is funny? My beef is raised on a family farm – yet are processed at National Beef – one of the largest industry leading processors and suppliers of fresh and chilled boxed beef products. Sometimes bigger is better – especially in terms of food safety. USDA inspectors are trained to make sure that the beef that I raise, is handled and processed with care to make sure the food fed to families across the U.S. and the world is safe. Points of misinformation from the authors that I want to address:

“Hamburger made at a large, industrial processing plant is cobbled together from hundreds or thousands of animals, typically raised in feedlots on a corn diet and fed antibiotics. By contrast, small grass-fed beef farmers across the country have an enormous amount of good ground meat to sell.”

You all probably know my position on corn-fed & grass-finished beef (check out my tab above) but the largest fallacy the authors portray is that beef animals finished on grain are not pumped with antibiotics. My friend, Joan Ruskamp, who runs a large, but family, beef feedlot, will tell you that her experience with being an EMT has helped with finding signs of sickness in her cattle – and only then will she give them antibiotics – when they are sick. Read her blog here.

And like I mentioned above. Bigger can better. Small packing plants are fine and I’ve personally eaten beef and pork from them – but I have no issue or reason to think that meat from larger plants is worse than the smaller. Safety is a priority and it goes through the same process as if it was from a smaller plant.

“Ground meat from grass-fed animals is relatively inexpensive.”

The term should be “grass-finished” (as nearly all beef animals graze on grass in the first year of life) and may be inexpensive relative to other grass-finished cuts. However, grass-finished is more expensive than grain-finished beef because it takes longer for that animal to reach a market-ready weight – thus incurring more costs.

Declaring my food independence!  I am declaring my “food independence” here on my blog that beef – whether a steak, roast OR ground – that is produced by small or large family farms, and is processed in small or large packing plants is still "sustainable, economical, gastronomically flexible and morally responsible". If it's BEEF, it's ALL good!