OT: Never complain about the cost of meat

[GuyOfDoom]

As for sources Fyron:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed

Vom Saal is one of the primary world researchers on effects of estrogenic compounds. He focuses mostly on BPA, which doesn't translate directly to beef, but is important none the less. I'll see if I can narrow down one of his papers in particular that highlights the particular trend of industrial research versus NIH funded research.

Shockingly enough industry rarely finds anything wrong with their practices. If you want a "real-life" example just look at Merck.

Industry has the luxury of being able to withhold their research findings because it comes from private funding. I'm personally of the belief that all scientific research should be public domain regardless of the source of funding.

It's clear that you share the common American mindset that "it can't hurt me" or "why should I change?" I'm not going to argue with you anymore past this post. If you'd like to continue the conversation more, I'll give you a email address or we can send messages to each other.

[aegisx]

I could sure go for a cheesesteak after all this talk.

[AgentZero]

Man, whoever came up with the melding of steak with cheese was a genius! And yet who gets the Nobel Prize? A bunch of bearded weenies who go on about things no one else understands. Where's the justice?

[Renegade 13]

Oh man...I leave the forum for a day, and look at all the farming/ranching misconceptions that come up! Remember, I'm a cattle rancher, so I have intimate knowledge of what goes on on such ranches... And so, without further ado:

GuyOfDoom said:
1) Beef isn't that healthy for you, for a number of reasons.

Beef most certainly is healthy for you, as my sister (who is a registered dietitian) will tell you. Beef, and meat in general, contains a load of compounds that are good for, and even essential to, a healthy human diet. Vegetarians often aren't as healthy as meat-eaters, unless they load up on the artificial supplements.

2) Like most foods now days it's becoming less natural and more "processed."

Completely bogus. The cattle we raise are naturally conceived, born (unless the cow's having trouble), grown, raised and butchered.

3) It takes more time and resources to raise an animal for food than it does to grow plants for food. It's one of the strongest points of the vegetarian philosophy.

I think Fyron covered this quite well, so I'll leave this one alone.

Those hormones given to animals...[snip]

On our end of the production pipeline, which lasts from conception, through birth, all the way up until the animal is around 600 pounds, absolutely zero hormones are given to the animals. Now, I can't say what happens after we sell them, because I don't have knowledge of that subject.

Livestock feed also commonly includes reclaimed protein... which comes from meat designated unsuitable for human consumption, and by law is treated with creosote at some point, as well as from fido and fluffy when they get euthanized. Say hello to the primary source of mad cow disease.

This is a load of (if you'll pardon the pun) complete bull ****e. Since 1997, when Britain had the massive outbreak of the so-called Mad Cow Disease (more properly, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE), there was a ban placed on any source of animal protein from being fed to cattle. Note that the term "Mad Cow Disease" really pisses me off, because it was an invention of the media to freak people out, and is really a misnomer. BSE does not harm people, and does not lead to CJD (the human version of BSE) unless someone is eating part of the central nervous system of an infected animal. Also note that human involvement and the previous practice of feeding animal protein to animals (which I find totally gross by the way) is not the only way diseases such as BSE develop; for example, the wild deer in parts of Canada have their own version of BSE...and you can't tell me they were busy eating the corpses of infected cows... I'm sorry if I seem a little steamed about this statement, but it's misconceptions such as this that drive people to become vegetarians, when such facts no longer hold true.

Animals are consistently fed hormones, specially derived diets and antibiotics...[snip]

Again, this misconception. We *do not* feed our animals any hormones, specially derived diets or antibiotics (unless the animal is sick, in which case we will use antibiotics in an attempt to make them well again). Our cattle are given x number of acres to wander around on and eat grass, leaves, whatever the hell they want to their heart's content. However, as a caveat to that statement, I again don't know what happens after we sell the animals, so I can't make a statement as to that.

If you’re referring to manure being good fertilizer, cow manure is actually pretty low on the scale.

In my personal experience, cow manure works beautifully as a fertilizer; just ask our vegetable garden

Funny you should mention there is no lack of arable land because at present the demand for ethanol based fuels on top of the already high demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup is driving the demand for Corn through the roof.

Of course, the fact that ethanol has been proven to be just a pipe dream has nothing to do with the matter...no, of course not. If the entire arable landmass of the US was taken up with corn crops, and all that corn was converted to ethanol, it would still only supply a fraction of the US's demand for fuels...now which use of the land is more inefficient, ethanol or livestock?

I would be more concerned about the large quantities of antibiotics that are fed to livestock...

See my pervious statement regarding antibiotics.

Note that recent news article about a scientist being offered a job if he guaranteed he'd come out against the existence of global warming.

This is totally off-topic, but if I were you, I'd look at the political affiliation of whoever made the claim that this happened...But that's a discussion for another day.

The amount of misconceptions that people have is just staggering...I guess it just goes to show that we all may think we know a lot, but we all really just know what we've been lead to believe.

[GuyOfDoom]

Renegade it sounds as if you raise freerange cattle. I'd be curious as to the number of cattle you see in a year.

Although your farm/ranch may not participate in those practices it doesn't mean they don't happen.

I'd be also curious to know if your family owns your facility or if it's corporate.

As for processing, even if you yourself do nothing to the cattle while you raise it that doesn't mean nothing happens to the meat further down the chain.

Vegetarians miss out primarily on a few key amino acids and sometimes iron. Beef is gradually increasing in its content of saturated fat. Meat protein is good for you for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean you should eat 5x your recommended servings in a day like most Americans do.

[Renegade 13]

GuyOfDoom said:
Renegade it sounds as if you raise freerange cattle. I'd be curious as to the number of cattle you see in a year.

We've recently had to scale back, for a variety of reasons, primarily due to the plummet in prices after the '03 BSE scare people had, with a few cases found in Canada and the US. Before scaling back, we had around ~320-350, after, we'll have around ~220 after calving.

Although your farm/ranch may not participate in those practices it doesn't mean they don't happen.

Indeed, that is true.

I'd be also curious to know if your family owns your facility or if it's corporate.

We fully own our ranch (around 1700 acres), there is no corporate involvment whatsoever. All the ranches in our area aren't corporately owned.

As for processing, even if you yourself do nothing to the cattle while you raise it that doesn't mean nothing happens to the meat further down the chain.

I completely agree, as I mentioned in my previous post

Vegetarians miss out primarily on a few key amino acids and sometimes iron. Beef is gradually increasing in its content of saturated fat. Meat protein is good for you for a number of reasons, but that doesn't mean you should eat 5x your recommended servings in a day like most Americans do.

Hmmm, well I must say I know nothing of the saturated fat content (when we butcher our cattle, the meat is much more lean than meat you buy in the grocery store, despite the fact that our cattle are by no means malnourished ). And I agree that some people don't need as much meat as they eat, though vegetarianism I think is a very illogical extreme.

[Fyron]

MasterChiToes said:
"But the whole call for proof thing is a tired refrain..."

Seeing as he offered to provide proof before anyone asked, this sentiment is completely irrelevant in this case.

[MasterChiToes]

Imperator Fyron said:
MasterChiToes said:
"But the whole call for proof thing is a tired refrain..."

Seeing as he offered to provide proof before anyone asked, this sentiment is completely irrelevant in this case.

Who did? Burn the witch! As Sarah Conner said, "There is no proof except that you snoof."

[GuyOfDoom]

I'll have to check with one of my co-workers, but I believe American farms are far more corporate than family owned. Difference in country I suppose.

You mentioned that you typically sell your cows at 600 lbs. I was under the impression that 600 lbs is fairly small for a beef cow.

[GuyOfDoom]

Alright while Physics might be your area, Biochemistry is one of mine. Starting from the top: Most food, beef is this instance is far from “natural.” Animals are consistently fed hormones, specially derived diets and antibiotics to keep them growing faster and bigger than ever. Those chemicals alter the animal on just about every level possible. The short version is that if it’s in the animals it makes it into us when we eat them. Even if I was being VERY conservative I’d could say we’re getting nanograms of various chemicals everytime we’re eating meat and it often takes less than that to affect a biological system. Then take into account how often people eat meat and how much they tend to eat. Do the math. If you’d like a few references for chemicals that have been PROVEN to show effects I can supply those for you. As for “no” evidence that comes from what it takes to conduct human studies. Again the short version is by the time it’s definitively “proven” in humans it’s 25+ years later and everyone has already been past dramaticaly affected. The FDA is about as good at regulating as the EPA {read WORTHLESS}.

Right there actually.

I hope the link is helpful, but I've got a bit too much to do recently narrow the search down too much.