You still didn't anser my question about your sources 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by LadyLorraine at 16/03/2010 08:42:24 PM
I would honestly like to know.
And that's fair enough. The 6 oz servings actually recommended by health institutions is much healthier than the 10z sirloins people gorge on. I definitely agree with you there. But meat on its own is not that bad. And we are no more akin to herbivores than we are to carnivores. Almost all herbivores have mechanisms to breakdown plant fibers that humans cannot. We have very little microbial digestion in our gut. The human gut is much closer to a carnivore gut than it is to a herbivore gut in pretty much every fashion (Except length of gut).
That's not a very good measure, really. The benefit of meat is not in it's caloric value, but in it's content of other nutrients. So to compare based on calories does no respect to the product. Furthermore, plant products require petroleum as well. And do you think your "organic" farmers out out there hand plowing and using Oxen? They're using petroleum too, and probably just as much when it comes to planting, harvesting and processing (After you adjust to scale, anyways).
Okay, let me clear somethings up for you. If a rancher is doing his job properly, the cattle are NOT fed a 100% grain diet. Yes, it is high in grains, but it is ALSO high in fiber. Because a sick cow is a useless cow. No, it is not the most "natural", but in order to meat the demands of the customers, it is what is done. You do not get quality marbling without fat deposits, which requires more energy than grass alone can provide. Regardless, cattle are perfectly able to eat grains. If a rancher is doing his job and balancing his diets optimally for his cattle, there is plenty of fiber in the cow's diet to offset these grains. And who in the WORLD told you the pH of a cow's stomach is 7? That is 100% untrue. Optimal rumen pH is slightly acidic at around 6.
As for that "mucousy film" and stomach expansion, that is called bloat. For one, I'd like to point out that bloat has plagued cattle since they were domesticated...well before the dawn dawn of industrialized cattle production. For another, bloat is not associated with high carbohydrates alone. It was once thought to, but that is no longer the primary theory amongst animal scientists. Both alfalfa bloat (which I'm sure you know is a legume PASTURE) and feedlot bloat are thought to be more associated with small PARTICLES of easily digestible carbohydrates and proteins as well. So, for example, feeding whole corn is much less likely to cause bloat as feed lot corn. Those two bloats are called "frothy" bloat. There is another kind of bloat called "Free gas" bloat, but that is not associated with feed itself in the slightest. It is more associated with a sudden change in environment or feed, obstruction or nerve damage. Here is a good bit on bloat. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6769
And in any case, grass fed beef is NOT sustainable. In order to provide the quantity of meat demanded, ranchers would be forced to stock too many cattle per acre, and as such, would overgraze the pasture land. And do you think these cattle will just stop shitting? Instead, this same quantity of shit will be spread all over a tightly packed overgrazed piece of "pasture" (which over time will more resemble a dry lot anyways). Grass fed beef works for here and there and to supply the demand for grass fed beef...but it cannot meet the demands of the entire beef industry.
As for antibiotics, it is not practice to put antibiotics in a healthy cow's diet. There is definitely use of PRObiotics, but even you eat those (if you eat yogurt, anyways). And in any case, the antibiotics fed to cows aren't going to affect you anyways. If the antibiotics affected you in anyway, the FDA would not permit them to be used in livestock animals. There is incredibly tight regulation on this, I assure you. They may make it more difficult for the rancher to keep his cows healthy, this is true, but as I've previously stated, an unhealthy cow is an unprofitable cow. There has been huge movement away from feeding antibiotics to healthy cattle in the past years. I'd make sure your sources were up to date...and that they were using relevant data.
As far as I know, there is no indication that H1N1 had anything to do with livestock production, but I admit I am not well versed on the subject. As for BSE, yes, the industry made a mistake...and rectified it . To shake your finger at the industry now is unfair to the progress they are making. and that is OLD news. Cattle haven't been fed their own species for years. And it's not like chicken meat is just tossed to the cows. It is ground bone meal, mostly, some meat, because it is cheaper to supplement calcium and protein in one step this way. Supplementing enables the cattle to lead healthier lives .
I'm saying you only know half the story and don't know much about the industry beyond what the other side has to say. And I'm also saying that they are quite likely feeding out inaccurate and/or outdated information in order to make their point. There have been a lot of changes in the industry in the past few years that a lot of people seem inclined to ignore.
The misinformation, perhaps. Do some research about what ACTUALLY goes on in the industries, not what its opponents would have you believe. The government pays farmers to not plant on land in order to help sustain the land. Not all fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum based, and as technology develops, fewer and fewer are. GMO corn is only modified against pests and pathogens pertinent to corn. Industrial breeds of corn have also been selected for resistance and yield, but that is no different than what we've done to bulldogs, mules, or Persian cats. The reason that the producers must reseed every year is not because the corn cannot breed, but because it is an annual grass and only grows once a year, and oh, we cut it down and eat it.
As for hormones, I can 100% guarantee you that you can produce any animal food product in the purest method you can. You will always find hormones in it after analysis. Why? Because the animal itself makes hormones. I know, I know, it's a SHOCKER, but those hormones don't magically disappear. While hormones are used sometimes, please keep in mind that everything and I do mean everything that is fed to food animals is approved by both the FDA and the USDA. Regulations are very tight and it is just as hard to get a drug approved for food animal use as it is for human use. The hormones used in dairy or meat production passed these stringent regulations. If you still do not want to consume it, that's fine and I can understand why. But keep in mind that much of the data against it neglects to mention details like "hormones are already there, no matter what is done".
I agree that there are many aspects of conventional production that could stand to be changed. And the industry is constantly evolving, even if its opponents would rather ignore it. There are changes being made every year; new research coming out every day. I've seen PETA spout "facts" that haven't been relevant for over a decade. There is nothing wrong with wanting to consume "organic, natural" products. But "the industry" is not the big bad evil you think it is.
If you have all the pertinent information and still wish to call conventional producers out as pariahs along with us who buy conventionally produced products...fine. But make sure you listen to more than one side and gather all the story. Not just half of it.
As for how meat is bad for our systems: Sure, a couple of ounces of red meat is not a problem....a 10 ounce steak though? 3 times a week? Our intestines, stomach acid, etc are not designed to break down that much decaying meat like say, a cats intestines would. Although we're omnivores, we have the intestinal structure more akin to herbivores, in that it is 10-15 times the length of our body, as opposed to a true carnivore's which is much less, and equipped with the means to breakdown rapidly decaying animal proteins fast (i.e. canine teeth in the plenty, very very strong stomach acid, etc)
And that's fair enough. The 6 oz servings actually recommended by health institutions is much healthier than the 10z sirloins people gorge on. I definitely agree with you there. But meat on its own is not that bad. And we are no more akin to herbivores than we are to carnivores. Almost all herbivores have mechanisms to breakdown plant fibers that humans cannot. We have very little microbial digestion in our gut. The human gut is much closer to a carnivore gut than it is to a herbivore gut in pretty much every fashion (Except length of gut).
and I understand that "organic" can mean really only a step away from industrial farming, as in it is the industrial farms producing the "organic" materials 1 field over from where they're producing everything the conventional method. Industrial organic, although I despise it, is still much better than industrial farming which gulps down petroleum at alarming rates. (As in, it takes 10-15 calories of petroleum now to produce 1 calorie of edible food)
That's not a very good measure, really. The benefit of meat is not in it's caloric value, but in it's content of other nutrients. So to compare based on calories does no respect to the product. Furthermore, plant products require petroleum as well. And do you think your "organic" farmers out out there hand plowing and using Oxen? They're using petroleum too, and probably just as much when it comes to planting, harvesting and processing (After you adjust to scale, anyways).
as an animal scientist, how can you say meat production doesn't harm the cattle? They're not made to eat corn and other grains, especially in the quantities we're pumping into them. Their entire digestive track gets drastically acidic and causes them pain, including their stomachs expanding to painful, dangerous proportions because of the mucousy film that closes off the top (due to eating corn). How do we deal with this? We give them antibiotics, hormones, etc that are making medical bills skyrocket as bacteria are becoming immune as they evolve to antibiotics given to humans. Grass fed cattle are much more A) sustainable B) healthier for the environment, because they (the cattle) aren't destroying the environment with fecal lagoons, and c) healthier for the animals themselves because their digestive tracks are designed for eating grass, with a PH of 7.
Okay, let me clear somethings up for you. If a rancher is doing his job properly, the cattle are NOT fed a 100% grain diet. Yes, it is high in grains, but it is ALSO high in fiber. Because a sick cow is a useless cow. No, it is not the most "natural", but in order to meat the demands of the customers, it is what is done. You do not get quality marbling without fat deposits, which requires more energy than grass alone can provide. Regardless, cattle are perfectly able to eat grains. If a rancher is doing his job and balancing his diets optimally for his cattle, there is plenty of fiber in the cow's diet to offset these grains. And who in the WORLD told you the pH of a cow's stomach is 7? That is 100% untrue. Optimal rumen pH is slightly acidic at around 6.
As for that "mucousy film" and stomach expansion, that is called bloat. For one, I'd like to point out that bloat has plagued cattle since they were domesticated...well before the dawn dawn of industrialized cattle production. For another, bloat is not associated with high carbohydrates alone. It was once thought to, but that is no longer the primary theory amongst animal scientists. Both alfalfa bloat (which I'm sure you know is a legume PASTURE) and feedlot bloat are thought to be more associated with small PARTICLES of easily digestible carbohydrates and proteins as well. So, for example, feeding whole corn is much less likely to cause bloat as feed lot corn. Those two bloats are called "frothy" bloat. There is another kind of bloat called "Free gas" bloat, but that is not associated with feed itself in the slightest. It is more associated with a sudden change in environment or feed, obstruction or nerve damage. Here is a good bit on bloat. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6769
And in any case, grass fed beef is NOT sustainable. In order to provide the quantity of meat demanded, ranchers would be forced to stock too many cattle per acre, and as such, would overgraze the pasture land. And do you think these cattle will just stop shitting? Instead, this same quantity of shit will be spread all over a tightly packed overgrazed piece of "pasture" (which over time will more resemble a dry lot anyways). Grass fed beef works for here and there and to supply the demand for grass fed beef...but it cannot meet the demands of the entire beef industry.
As for antibiotics, it is not practice to put antibiotics in a healthy cow's diet. There is definitely use of PRObiotics, but even you eat those (if you eat yogurt, anyways). And in any case, the antibiotics fed to cows aren't going to affect you anyways. If the antibiotics affected you in anyway, the FDA would not permit them to be used in livestock animals. There is incredibly tight regulation on this, I assure you. They may make it more difficult for the rancher to keep his cows healthy, this is true, but as I've previously stated, an unhealthy cow is an unprofitable cow. There has been huge movement away from feeding antibiotics to healthy cattle in the past years. I'd make sure your sources were up to date...and that they were using relevant data.
I'm all about sustainability. By this, I mean: asparagus flown in from Chile, garlic from China, beef from Brazil, pigs from Mexico, etc etc are not viable options for a healthy world. Society is gorged on corn, soybeans, and petroleum and it is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Even if you don't agree with all of this, can you not agree that CAFOs are the cause of lots of super viruses, such as the H1N1 that came from the pig factory farms in Mexico (this was not Mexico's fault, as the farms are owned by American companies)? What about the "mad cow" disease? The cows are only getting that because originally we were feeding them their own species, and when we realized that was a problem, we fed the dead cows to chickens and then the chickens to the cows instead (this is only 1 degree distance cannibalism....it still has problems).
As far as I know, there is no indication that H1N1 had anything to do with livestock production, but I admit I am not well versed on the subject. As for BSE, yes, the industry made a mistake...and rectified it . To shake your finger at the industry now is unfair to the progress they are making. and that is OLD news. Cattle haven't been fed their own species for years. And it's not like chicken meat is just tossed to the cows. It is ground bone meal, mostly, some meat, because it is cheaper to supplement calcium and protein in one step this way. Supplementing enables the cattle to lead healthier lives .
Are you saying you disagree, Lorraine?
I'm saying you only know half the story and don't know much about the industry beyond what the other side has to say. And I'm also saying that they are quite likely feeding out inaccurate and/or outdated information in order to make their point. There have been a lot of changes in the industry in the past few years that a lot of people seem inclined to ignore.
Industrially produced food is only cheap because it is being subsidized by the government...which makes it not that cheap for people, because we're the ones fronting the bill for all of it anyway: the corn/soybean farmers losing money on every bushel they produce, the government paying them to make sure they don't produce anything else, the whole subsidizing the entire process, the nitrogen based (produced via petroleum) fertilizers, the pesticides (petroleum based), the genetically modified corn kernels that farmers have to buy every year, because we've taken away their innate ability to reproduce (well, they always had to have our help, with spreading the pollens around...but it was still natural), the antibiotics, the fines for polluting the environment, the hormones, the feed, the cattle recycling process.... it all adds up to a whopping amount of money that might shock the public. The public is willingly ignorant though, because the information is out there to see.
The misinformation, perhaps. Do some research about what ACTUALLY goes on in the industries, not what its opponents would have you believe. The government pays farmers to not plant on land in order to help sustain the land. Not all fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum based, and as technology develops, fewer and fewer are. GMO corn is only modified against pests and pathogens pertinent to corn. Industrial breeds of corn have also been selected for resistance and yield, but that is no different than what we've done to bulldogs, mules, or Persian cats. The reason that the producers must reseed every year is not because the corn cannot breed, but because it is an annual grass and only grows once a year, and oh, we cut it down and eat it.
As for hormones, I can 100% guarantee you that you can produce any animal food product in the purest method you can. You will always find hormones in it after analysis. Why? Because the animal itself makes hormones. I know, I know, it's a SHOCKER, but those hormones don't magically disappear. While hormones are used sometimes, please keep in mind that everything and I do mean everything that is fed to food animals is approved by both the FDA and the USDA. Regulations are very tight and it is just as hard to get a drug approved for food animal use as it is for human use. The hormones used in dairy or meat production passed these stringent regulations. If you still do not want to consume it, that's fine and I can understand why. But keep in mind that much of the data against it neglects to mention details like "hormones are already there, no matter what is done".
I agree that there are many aspects of conventional production that could stand to be changed. And the industry is constantly evolving, even if its opponents would rather ignore it. There are changes being made every year; new research coming out every day. I've seen PETA spout "facts" that haven't been relevant for over a decade. There is nothing wrong with wanting to consume "organic, natural" products. But "the industry" is not the big bad evil you think it is.
If you have all the pertinent information and still wish to call conventional producers out as pariahs along with us who buy conventionally produced products...fine. But make sure you listen to more than one side and gather all the story. Not just half of it.