Meat Production is Making the Rich Ill and the Poor Hungry
RJC
Rome for the World Food Summit. The meeting will focus on how to
create a sustainable approach to development and get food in the
mouths of the nearly 1 billion who are currently undernourished. More
interesting than the agenda, however, will be the menu. At both the
official dinners and at NGO gatherings, expect to see the consumption
of large quantities of meat. And herein lies the contradiction.
Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry all over the world
because much of the arable land is being used to grow feed grain for
animals rather than for people. Cattle are among the most inefficient
converters of feed. In the US, 157 million metric tons of cereal,
legumes and vegetable protein suitable for human use is fed to
livestock to produce 28 million metric tons of animal protein for
annual human consumption.
The worldwide demand for feed grain continues to grow, as
multinational corporations seek to capitalize on the meat demands of
affluent countries. Two-thirds of the increases in grain production in
the US and Europe between 1950 and 1985, the boom years in
agriculture, went to provide feed grain.
In developing countries, the question of land reform has periodically
rallied peasant populations and spawned populist political uprisings.
But the question of how the land is used has been of less interest.
Yet the decision to use the land to create an artificial food chain
has resulted in misery for hundreds of millions around the world. An
acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre devoted
to meat production; legumes (beans, peas, lentils) can produce 10
times more protein and leafy vegetables 15 times more.
The global corporations that produce the seeds, the farm chemicals and
the cattle and that control the slaughterhouse and the marketing and
distribution channels for beef are eager to tout the advantage of
grain-fed livestock. Advertising and sales campaigns geared to
developing nations are quick to equate grain-fed beef with a country's
prestige. Climbing the "protein ladder" becomes the mark of success.
Enlarging and diversifying their meat supply appears to be a first
step for every developing country. They start by putting in modern
broiler and egg production facilities - the fastest and cheapest way
to produce nonplant protein. Then, as rapidly as their economies
permit, they climb "the protein ladder" to pork, milk, and dairy
products, to grass-fed beef and finally, if they can, to grain-fed
beef.
Encouraging other nations to do this advances the interests of
American farmers and agribusiness companies. Two-thirds of all the
grain exported from the US to other countries goes to feed livestock
rather than to feed hungry people.
Many developing nations climbed the protein ladder at the height of
the agricultural boom, when "green revolution" technology was
producing grain surpluses. In 1971 the Food and Agricultural
Organization suggested switching to coarse grains that could be more
easily consumed by livestock. The US government provided further
encouragement in its foreign aid program, tying food aid to
development of feed grain markets. Companies like Ralston Purina and
Cargill were given low-interest government loans to establish
grain-fed poultry operations in developing countries. Many nations
followed the advice of the FAO and have attempted to remain high on
the protein ladder long after the surpluses of the green revolution
have disappeared.
The shift from food to feed continues apace in many nations, with no
sign of reversal. The human consequences of the transition were
dramatically illustrated in 1984 in Ethiopia when thousands of people
were dying each day from famine. At the very same time Ethiopia was
using some of its agricultural land to produce linseed cake,
cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to the UK and other
European nations as feed for livestock. Millions of acres of third
world land are now being used exclusively to produce feed for European
livestock.
Tragically, some 80% of the world's hungry children live in countries
with actual food surpluses, much of which is in the form of feed fed
to animals which will be consumed by only the well-to-do consumers. In
the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled
since 1950 and now exceeds 21% of the total grain produced.
The irony of the present system is that millions of wealthy consumers
in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence (heart
attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer) brought on by gorging on fatty
grain-fed meats, while the poor in the third world are dying of
diseases of poverty brought on by the denial of access to land to grow
food grain for their families. We are long overdue for a global
discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
vegetarian diet for the human race.
FILES > FOOD > PROCESSED
http://www.transnationale.org/anglais/dossiers/alimentation/industrielle.htm
Jim Webster
RJC <te...@transnationale.org> wrote in message
news:63a01fab.02052...@posting.google.com...
> In June, agricultural ministers from around the world will gather in
> Rome for the World Food Summit.
if anyone is interested this troll is getting torn into on sci.agric
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Sirius
>We are long overdue for a global
> discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
> vegetarian diet for the human race.
But perhaps they WANT to eat meat? Long live freedom.
Andrew Byron
Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:KIfH8.2842$FZ4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Indeed, this is Jeremy Rifkin's article from the guardian we discussed last
week on UBA, obviously if 'RJC' was not a troll he/she would be aware of
this.
I think said at the time that this was just a piece of veggie propoganda
which greatly oversimplified the problem, this poster clearly intended it to
be so, but having looked into Rifkin a bit further i would say that the
Guardian article was out of context with Rifkin's campagn, not to eradicate
meat eating, but to cut beef consumption in the US by half, promote family
farms over coporate agri business, and break the strangle hold the beef
lobby have over US farming.
Rifkin's comments don't apply to the more extensive mothods used in the UK
for beef rearing, but as far as the obscenely industrialsed methods of
cattle rearing used in the states go, coupled to the sheer volume of red
meat consumed by americans, i think he may have a point.
From Rifkins 'Beyond Beef' website
How will the Beyond Beef campaign affect the family farm?
A. The family farm has been among the chief victims of the powerful beef
industry lobby; every small farmer in America knows this. For years, the
beef lobby has been able to secure cheap subsidized feed at the expense of
American farmers whose costs of production often exceed the price of feed
set by the government. Small scale ranchers are also exploited by the beef
industry giants who are now able to control and manipulate the price of beef
through various market arrangements.
While Beyond Beef is asking people to cut their beef consumption in half,
the campaign is also encouraging consumers to demand humanely and
sustainably raised beef when they do eat meat. The Beyond Beef campaign will
help preserve the family farm by providing a new market niche for beef that
has come from cattle who are humanely raised under sustainable, organic
standards. It is impossible to raise cattle under such standards in giant
corporate feedlots: only the family farm is capable of filling this new
market. Small farmers are encouraged to make a transition to humane,
sustainable husbantlry practices to fill this new and important need.
The Beyond Beef campaign is also advocating a bold new farm policy in the
United States -- one that encourages a transition from feed to food
production by rewarding the nation's small farmers with higher prices for
growing food for human consumption. We believe that it is past time for the
government to move its priorities away from policies and programs that
subsidize feed for livestock and toward programs that subsidize food
production for needy human beings, The Government should greatly expand its
aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and
abroad.
It might be idealisting and it aint gonna happen, but that doesnt mean they
shouldnt try. Wouldnt you like them in your camp? And amongst all the
quotes, this from an American rancher who owns grazing land in the Amazon,
describing the attitude of cattle colonists in the Brazilian rain forests:
"We only got hooked on grain-fed meat just as we got hooked on gaz guzzling
automobiles. Big cars 'made sense' only when oil was cheap, grain-fed meat
'makes sense' only because the true costs of producing it are not counted"
And yet another from Ehrlich and Ehrlich, authors of 'The Population
Explosion'
"Family farmers are the victims of public policy that gives preference to
feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain
policy of this nation and has made the Beef Cartel the biggest hog at the
trough"
And yet another from the Exec. Director of a meat industry organization:
"The amount of meat lost each year through careless handling and brutality
would be enough to feed a million Americans for a year"
Yes Rifkin and his ilk are OTT, prophets of doom, whatever else you want to
call them. But unless someone bangs the drum so loudly they practically
deafen us how do they even begin to get people to listen? If even a tiny
percentage of what Beyond Beef quote is true, the production of beef in the
US is a national disgrace and, moreover, where locally the family farmer is
the biggest loser (apart from the sad saps with beef practically oozing out
of their every orifice of course) The sad thing for the whole planet of
course is that, in real terms, no one will listen to them - least of all in
the US. Perhaps as Americans themselves that's what makes them zealots
about it all, but I dont in any way think they are bigots. It does become
ever clearer why there is a whispering campaign in the US to rubbish
everything Rifkin says though.
>
>
RR
"Andrew Byron" <and...@elmsfarm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acl3ou$j2u$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
If you've ever driven along Hwy 5 in California, as you approach Stockton
you will begin notice this powerful stench coming from somewhere. You look
around trying to locate it. Then, after a short time, you begin to see
them, all crammed together, literally thousands upon thousands of cattle
all crammed together and standing in their own excrement one assumes due to
the overwhelming smell. Fenced in, no shade at all from the central
valley's brutal sun (though sometimes a rain-bird type sprinkler is seen
shooting out over a few of 'em) and nowhere to go. The miserable scene is
about as bleak and depressing as it gets. And it goes on for quite a ways.
I look at this and "obscene" is the only word I can use to describe it.
What arrogance to sardine them like that solely to maximize profits
somebody's profits. How inhumane too.
In another area around Novato and also inland down the coast (and I'm sure
lots of other areas as well) I've seen cows with udders so huge due to BGH
that they are literally dragging on the ground. It looks quite painful or
at least very uncomfortable for the poor animal. I attribute it solely to
inhuman greed and meaness.
But better not get to vocal about it. Remember what happened to Oprah
Winfrey.
Hua Kul
> news:KIfH8.2842$FZ4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "RJC" <te...@transnationale.org> wrote in message
> > news:63a01fab.02052...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >We are long overdue for a global
> > > discussion on how best to promote a diversified, high-protein,
> > > vegetarian diet for the human race.
> >
> >
> > But perhaps they WANT to eat meat? Long live freedom.
>
> Indeed, this is Jeremy Rifkin's article from the guardian we discussed last
> week on UBA, obviously if 'RJC' was not a troll he/she would be aware of
> this.
> It does become
> ever clearer why there is a whispering campaign in the US to rubbish
> everything Rifkin says though.
>
is about, much less whisper about him. The willing ignorance of the
American public about health issues, aided by a media that blindly
accepts any blurb from a recognized "expert" without doing research to
verify it, is astounding and predicts a poor future for our country.
Of the two dozen or so great civilizations that have existed in
written history, only a few were conquered by outside invaders, the
others all decayed from within. I believe in choosing what we want to
eat, but we shouldn't let the future of our country be clouded by the
vested economic interests of the grain industry, or any other
business. America became great on the backs of family farmers and
other independant businessmen, and we can get back to that. We have
the land.
> "The Government should greatly expand its
> aid programs to distribute grain surpluses to needy people at home and
> abroad." (Rifkin quote)
This is precisely the practice that has caused famine in many parts of
the world. The first thing that happens when a supply of free or
cheap food comes to an area is that farmers go out of business. Then
there is no infrastructure to support the population if future food is
withheld or diverted. The land will support only the population that
it can. If an artificial source of food allows a population increase
while at the same time causing the destruction of the indigenous food
production infrastructure, it's a famine waiting to happen. The best
way to help people is to provide them help in raising their own food.
Here's an excellent example of that kind of technology:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/approtec.html
--Hua Kul
RR
Jim Webster
Andrew Byron <and...@elmsfarm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acl3ou$j2u$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
the UK
> for beef rearing, but as far as the obscenely industrialsed methods of
> cattle rearing used in the states go, coupled to the sheer volume of
red
> meat consumed by americans, i think he may have a point.
interesting comments snipped.
What has occurred to me, how to Argentinians finish their cattle. OK we
see the pictures of herds grazing on the pampas, but are weaned calves
fattened in feedlots or the equivilent, or do they just run them on out
to grass for another year or two?
Sirius
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> If you've ever driven along Hwy 5 in California, as you approach Stockton
> you will begin notice this powerful stench coming from somewhere etc etc
This sounds horrific, but somehow, I get the feeling that whoever wrote it
might not have been an impartial observer.
Jim Webster
RR <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
sure
> lots of other areas as well) I've seen cows with udders so huge due to
BGH
> that they are literally dragging on the ground.
this I very much doubt. Anyone who has milked will tell you that sort of
cow is a total waste of time as you cannot get the machine on to milk
them
Oz
>In another area around Novato and also inland down the coast (and I'm sure
>lots of other areas as well) I've seen cows with udders so huge due to BGH
>that they are literally dragging on the ground.
That's probably due to poor breeding. We had a bull used in 73,74 & 75
that did this to all the animals (well, 80%) after their first
lactation. Took decades to breed it out.
>It looks quite painful or
>at least very uncomfortable for the poor animal.
Not good.
>I attribute it solely to
>inhuman greed and meaness.
Maybe, but maybe not.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
RR
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:acm573$1np$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> RR <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > In another area around Novato and also inland down the coast (and I'm
> sure
> > lots of other areas as well) I've seen cows with udders so huge due to
> BGH
> > that they are literally dragging on the ground.
>
> this I very much doubt. Anyone who has milked will tell you that sort of
> cow is a total waste of time as you cannot get the machine on to milk
> them
Well I looked to find some pictures on the internet and found these right
off.
http://www.milksucks.com/bigudderbig.jpg
http://www.scaredsacred.org/SCAREDSACREDARTSITE/SCAREDCOWS.html
Guess I remembered it a little bit exaggerated. Still pretty pathetic if
you asked me.
More info on rBGH:
http://www.purefood.org/rbghlink.html
http://www.ejnet.org/bgh/
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bgh.html
The Gaps Report
http://www.nfu.ca/gapsreport.html
rBGH is a Monsanto invention - figures.
RR
Fine with me if you don't believe it. It's true nonetheless.
Timothy J. Lee
Those who have driven route 5 in California's Central Valley are
likely to be familiar with the cattle smell near Coalinga.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Jim Webster
>
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:acm573$1np$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > RR <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > In another area around Novato and also inland down the coast (and
I'm
> > sure
> > > lots of other areas as well) I've seen cows with udders so huge
due to
> > BGH
> > > that they are literally dragging on the ground.
> >
> > this I very much doubt. Anyone who has milked will tell you that
sort of
> > cow is a total waste of time as you cannot get the machine on to
milk
> > them
>
> Well I looked to find some pictures on the internet and found these
right
> off.
>
> http://www.milksucks.com/bigudderbig.jpg
> http://www.scaredsacred.org/SCAREDSACREDARTSITE/SCAREDCOWS.html
>
> Guess I remembered it a little bit exaggerated. Still pretty pathetic
if
> you asked me.
not being nasty but you don't have to be a technological wizard to
doctor photos, especially electronically. A cow whose udder touches the
ground cannot be milked, the machines will not work, it is that simple.
Sagging udders used to be a lot more of a problem thirty years
ago before the breeders got their act together. I can remember there
used to be a firm in Ireland that as a sideline made bra's for cows in
the 1960s and 70s
RR
"Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:acn4ki$r1d$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> In article <UOvH8.4172$Qs4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
> Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >> If you've ever driven along Hwy 5 in California, as you approach
Stockton
> >> you will begin notice this powerful stench coming from somewhere etc
etc
> >
> >This sounds horrific, but somehow, I get the feeling that whoever wrote
it
> >might not have been an impartial observer.
>
> Those who have driven route 5 in California's Central Valley are
> likely to be familiar with the cattle smell near Coalinga.
>
I think that's it. On consulting my wife she tells me that it is somewhat
south of Stockton.
Sirius
> Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >> If you've ever driven along Hwy 5 in California, as you approach
Stockton
> >> you will begin notice this powerful stench coming from somewhere etc
etc
> >
> >This sounds horrific, but somehow, I get the feeling that whoever wrote
it
> >might not have been an impartial observer.
>
> Those who have driven route 5 in California's Central Valley are
> likely to be familiar with the cattle smell near Coalinga.
My dog sometimes has quite a smell as well - but he is very happy.
Jim Webster
>
> "Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:acn4ki$r1d$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> > In article <UOvH8.4172$Qs4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
> > Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >news:mitH8.2339$LC3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > >> If you've ever driven along Hwy 5 in California, as you approach
> Stockton
> > >> you will begin notice this powerful stench coming from somewhere
etc
> etc
> > >
> > >This sounds horrific, but somehow, I get the feeling that whoever
wrote
> it
> > >might not have been an impartial observer.
> >
> > Those who have driven route 5 in California's Central Valley are
> > likely to be familiar with the cattle smell near Coalinga.
> >
>
> I think that's it. On consulting my wife she tells me that it is
somewhat
> south of Stockton.
hate to say it but I find the stink of most cities pretty disgusting as
well
Andrew Byron
>
>
>
> This sounds horrific, but somehow, I get the feeling that whoever wrote it
> might not have been an impartial observer.
>
>
trying to sell silage additive,(there aint no such thing as a free lunch
afterall), the guy next to me was telling me how his son was doing his year
out from college on a californian dairy farm, he wasn't that impressed with
what he saw. I don't think the observations made by the american poster
'RR' were that far from the mark.
I came across this site a while back
http://www.madcowboy.com/
It concerns a book written by an ex Texas cattle man, don't know how
accurate it is, but i'm inclined to think that the american beef industry is
pretty hard to defend. The thing is, the British industry is far more
welfare friendly, so why fight a rearguard action to defend the Americans
when we could simply condemn this kind of farming and promote our own as
more welfare friendly and ethical.
Putting aside issues of animal welfare, surely this would serve our own
intrests better? The public have a very negative image of British farmers,
anything which promotes our image as being more environmentally friendly
and compasionate can't be a bad thing.
Andrew Byron
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nZwrbNB+...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> RR writes
>
>
> That's probably due to poor breeding. We had a bull used in 73,74 & 75
> that did this to all the animals (well, 80%) after their first
> lactation. Took decades to breed it out.
>
> >It looks quite painful or
> >at least very uncomfortable for the poor animal.
>
> Not good.
>
mexican cheap labour to do it for you, who cares?
I understand the americans use BST, Increasing the cows capacity in this
essentially unnatural way, (I know its a natural hormone, but it wasn't
intended to be injected into the cows arse every other day), could wear the
cow out alot faster. When farms opperate on such a large scale, the value of
the animal as an individual decreases.
> >I attribute it solely to
> >inhuman greed and meaness.
>
> Maybe, but maybe not.
Quite, essentially this is speculation, I would be quite interested to go
and have a look for myself, anyone fancy sponsoring a study tour? ;)
Oz
>
>Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nZwrbNB+...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>> RR writes
>>
>>
>> That's probably due to poor breeding. We had a bull used in 73,74 & 75
>> that did this to all the animals (well, 80%) after their first
>> lactation. Took decades to breed it out.
>>
>> >It looks quite painful or
>> >at least very uncomfortable for the poor animal.
>>
>> Not good.
>>
>If yo have to milk the cows yourself especially, OTOH if you have a load of
>mexican cheap labour to do it for you, who cares?
Mastitis, short cow life, high cell counts, expensive milking.
Very bad animal welfare.
>I understand the americans use BST, Increasing the cows capacity in this
>essentially unnatural way, (I know its a natural hormone, but it wasn't
>intended to be injected into the cows arse every other day), could wear the
>cow out alot faster.
Maybe, or maybe not.
>When farms opperate on such a large scale, the value of
>the animal as an individual decreases.
I think that's a factor of the staff, not the numbers of cattle.
Indeed the idea of (say) 500 cows with bad feet doesn't bear thinking
about and would be a horrendous cost.
Sirius
Fair enough, I'll remain open minded on it. The thing is though that being
ignorant of farming practice in USA and their welfare laws, I'd give them
the benefit of the doubt if the criticism comes from animal rights people
who tend to be blinded by their zeal and couldn't tell a happy contented cow
from an emaciated dying one, and seem to have an agenda other than animal
welfare issues.
The original bit of prose seemed to me like it was written by someone whose
aim was to paint a shocking picture regardless of the reality.
Jim Webster
the other problem is that the vegetarian movement in the UK has always
lifted US experience lock stock and barrel. This is on a par with the
animal rights people who wanted our live exports banned and used (from
memory) photographs of argentinian horses being unloaded in Italy
Oz
>The original bit of prose seemed to me like it was written by someone whose
>aim was to paint a shocking picture regardless of the reality.
agreed.
Andrew Byron
>
> > this I very much doubt. Anyone who has milked will tell you that sort of
> > cow is a total waste of time as you cannot get the machine on to milk
> > them
>
> Well I looked to find some pictures on the internet and found these right
> off.
>
> http://www.milksucks.com/bigudderbig.jpg
> http://www.scaredsacred.org/SCAREDSACREDARTSITE/SCAREDCOWS.html
>
> Guess I remembered it a little bit exaggerated. Still pretty pathetic if
> you asked me.
Ah, the milksucks web site, created by those wonderful people at PETA.
(people for the ethical treatment of animals) These loonies are against
keeping animals as pets even, IMHO they are simply not wired up right, I'd
take the info on their site with a pinch of saly if I were you.
I've visited their site before, it was full of misinformation and
inacuricies, and downright lies, I wrote to them and pointed out some of the
basic errors, I'm still awaiting a reply but no doubt my letter bomb got
lost in the post.
I suppose i should check it out again to see if they actually corrected the
errors. One of the picture illustrating the plight of the poor cow showed
one animal being tortured in a metal frame, with a man about to perform some
unspeakable task on it with an angle grinder, or so they thought. It was
actually a picture of a cow taving its feet trimmed in a roll over crush, a
device specifically designed to decrease stress and improve welfare. They
also thought BST was used in the UK.
They handed out cards to children outside schools, which made wild and
innacurate claims about the 'harmful' effects of drinking milk, they did
this despite the Advertising Standards Agency telling them to stop.
These people are dangerous nutters, Rifkin's campagn however, though i'm
sure it has its share of hardcore veggies, seems a little more pragmatic in
its tolerance of welfare friendly farming.
greymaus
From a horrifying story i heard one evening from a person who milked
cows in Florida , it could be true .
--
Greymaus;
Follow up , don't e-mail , my killfile is savage ;
Next Year In Hak Nam ;
Hua Kul
>
> Fair enough, I'll remain open minded on it. The thing is though that being
> ignorant of farming practice in USA and their welfare laws, I'd give them
> the benefit of the doubt if the criticism comes from animal rights people
> who tend to be blinded by their zeal and couldn't tell a happy contented cow
> from an emaciated dying one, and seem to have an agenda other than animal
> welfare issues.
>
> The original bit of prose seemed to me like it was written by someone whose
> aim was to paint a shocking picture regardless of the reality.
Here's how it's really done in America. This is about as unnatural as
it gets. My overriding concern is the bad health effects of the meat
from these practices. Our omega6:omega3 free fatty acid ratio should
be about 1:1 or 2:1, but these animals have about a 20:1 ratio due to
grain feeding instead of grass feeding.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/17/cattle1.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/13/omega3_fats.htm
--Hua Kul
suzee
>
> If yo have to milk the cows yourself especially, OTOH if you have a load of
> mexican cheap labour to do it for you, who cares?
Commercial dairies, even small ones use machines and have used them for
many, many years. No one milks by hand unless they've just got one or
two cows for family and/or neigbor use.
sue
greymaus
I read a persons account of milking cows in New Zealand .
Every morning , milk cows,
remove dead cows ,
next job (on some farms , dose with anti-bloat agent)
Sirius
> Sirius writes
> >The original bit of prose seemed to me like it was written by someone
whose
> >aim was to paint a shocking picture regardless of the reality.
>
> agreed.
Now theres a first!
Oz
OK, I apologise for that ....
Steve Harris
>> Those who have driven route 5 in California's Central Valley are
>> likely to be familiar with the cattle smell near Coalinga.
>
>
>My dog sometimes has quite a smell as well - but he is very happy.
I thought that horrid zone there on the way up to Fresno was pigs, since it
seems to be worse than the standard stockyards down by Riverside/ N. Corona
where the 60 crosses the 15. As for Coalinga, yes, everybody who's ever
driven up to central Cal from SoCal knows that stretch. There are
interesting citrus factory smells in the area also. I never drive Hwy 5
without thinking up a business plan of Vacation Smell-Tours for the Blind.
You know-- open top double decker London Bus? Drive them up the 5 past
breweries, stockyards, pigfarms, garlic farms in Gilroy, then detour through
Yosemite before heading for the fishmarkets in the bay area. Take yer dog.
It could work.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Huw
"greymaus" <gray...@yahoo.com> wrote .
> >
> >
>
> I read a persons account of milking cows in New Zealand .
> Every morning , milk cows,
> remove dead cows ,
> next job (on some farms , dose with anti-bloat agent)
> --
The dead cows were the ones who didn't get enough anti bloat the
previous milking. A hazard of high legume pasture. Invest in a bloat
dosing system all you organic farmers out there! Oh I forgot, in the
UK at least you would not be allowed to do it unless the cow was on
the point of death. Or do they prefer the use of a knife or canulae
stuck through the side of the cow?
Huw
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.363 / Virus Database: 201 - Release Date: 21/05/02
Gordon Couger
beef cattle in that anything that causes them stress or discomfort reduces
their productivity. Uncomfortable stressed cattle get in your pocket book in
very short order.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Oz
>I can't say about dairy cattle but I an pretty sure they are the same as
>beef cattle in that anything that causes them stress or discomfort reduces
>their productivity. Uncomfortable stressed cattle get in your pocket book in
>very short order.
I am afraid you are wrong.
Dairy cattle are not "about the same" as beef cattle, they are far more
sensitive. Even a small change in routine is enough to drop the milk. An
unhappy animal drops continuously.
Andrew Byron
suzee <qiu...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
news:3CEFD8...@nidlink.com...
Er, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning sue. As i milk cows for a
living i am aware of the invention of the milking machine. It isn't however,
fully automated, (apart from a few robot milkers), and still needs an
operator to put the clusters on, that's what we mean by 'milking'.
Oz's point that the cows with very large udders would make milking difficult
is indeed correct,my point was that if one didn't have to put the cluster on
yourself you might not be so worried. However, no matter how unconcerned the
manager was about the welfare of his staff or his animals, such cows would
hardly be desirable for a host of other reasons, so i think Oz is right in
suggesting that photos of cows with their udders dragging on the ground were
either altered or taken some time ago.
I think though that by arguing about minor points of animal welfare we are
drifting off topic, ans in effect tryig to excuse what is going on in the
american beef and dairy industry. This is understandable, as i think Jim
said earlier, AR groups tend to lump british farming in with the more
industrialised farming of the US, which instantly puts us on the defensive.
I'm inclined to think that we, as British farmers, would be better off
saying 'yes, this sort of farming is unsustainable, it is inhumane, and most
probably downright unhealthy, but we don't do it like that.'
Personally, I can't see why anyone would be so keen to eat corn fed beef
anyway, give me a grass fed aberdeen angus roast anyday.
>
> sue
Sirius
"Hua Kul" <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:3da4c6e5.02052...@posting.google.com...
> "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:<G2KH8.1686$td4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > Fair enough, I'll remain open minded on it. The thing is though that
being
> > ignorant of farming practice in USA and their welfare laws, I'd give
them
> > the benefit of the doubt if the criticism comes from animal rights
people
> > who tend to be blinded by their zeal and couldn't tell a happy contented
cow
> > from an emaciated dying one, and seem to have an agenda other than
animal
> > welfare issues.
> >
> > The original bit of prose seemed to me like it was written by someone
whose
> > aim was to paint a shocking picture regardless of the reality.
>
> Here's how it's really done in America.
No grass fattened beef in America??!! That suprises me. Anyone know?
>This is about as unnatural as
> it gets. My overriding concern is the bad health effects of the meat
> from these practices. Our omega6:omega3 free fatty acid ratio should
> be about 1:1 or 2:1, but these animals have about a 20:1 ratio due to
> grain feeding instead of grass feeding.
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/17/cattle1.htm
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/13/omega3_fats.htm
Interesting stuff (some pasted below). If this is correct and proven (again
does anyone know?) then I'm delighted to learn that grass fed beef is
healthier than cereal fed. The importance of oils from fish has had quite a
bit of publicity of late, but I didn't realise that grass fed beef was high
in them as well. There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
idea what percentage it would be.
From the second link above:
Generally our diet contains far to much omega 6 fats. Experts looking at the
dietary ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids suggest that in early human
history the ratio was about 1:1. Currently most Americans eat a dietary
ratio that falls between 20:1 and 50:1. The optimal ratio is most likely
closer to the original ratio of 1:1. For most of us this means greatly
reducing the omega-6 fatty acids we consume and increasing the amount of
omega-3 fatty acids.
Please recognize that we get ALL the omega-6 and omega-9 fat we need from
food. We do NOT need to take any supplements for these fats. Many of the
omega fat supplements you see in health food stores will only serve to
worsen your health, not improve it as they contain omega 6 fats which will
worsen your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.
I strongly recommend avoiding sunflower, corn, soy, safflower, canola, or
products that contain these oils. That is no hydrogenated or partially
hydrogenated fats, no margarine, no vegetable oil, no shortening. These oils
are chock full of omega-6 fats and will only worsen your omega 6:omega 3
ratio.
Acceptable oils will be a high quality extra virgin olive oil, coconut oil,
avocados, and organic butter, or better yet grass-fed organic butter.
Another way to improve your omega 6:3 ratio is to change the type of meat
you are eating. You could consume more game meat like venison, or other game
animals that are raised exclusively on grass type foods. However, these are
hard to find and generally more expensive than beef.
Since nearly all cattle are grain fed before slaughter, if you eat most
traditionally raised beef, it will typically worsen you omega 6:omega 3
ratio.
Normally a good ratio for omega 6:3 in fish is 2 or 3 to 1. The lower the
better. Grassfed beef from Grassfed Organics is much higher in Omega 3 than
fish, with a 6:3 ratio of 0.16 to 1. This information is from a study done
at Iowa State University in August 2001.
To get the necessary Omega-3 fatty acids, you should consider eating meat
that is allowed to "free-range", or in the case of cattle, to be grass-fed.
Unfortunately, you cannot buy this grass-fed beef at your local grocery
store.
You must also be careful as many stores will advertise grass-fed beef but it
really isn't. They do this as ALL cattle are grass fed, but the key is what
they are fed the months prior to being processed.
Most all cattle are shipped to giant feed lots and fed corn to fatten them
up. You will need to call the person who actually grew the beef, NOT the
store manager, to find out the truth.
The least expensive way to obtain authentic grass fed beef would be to find
a farmer who is growing the beef who you can trust and buy a half a side of
beef from him. This way you save the shipping and also receive a reduced
rate on the meat.
An inexpensive, yet effective way to determine if the meat is really from a
grass fed animal is to purchase the ground beef. Slowly cook the beef till
done and drain and collect all the fat. Grass fed beef is very high in
omega-3 fats and will be relatively thin compared to traditionally prepared
ground beef.
It will also be a liquid at room temperature as it has very few saturated
fats which are mostly solid at room temperature.
Jane Gillett
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> not being nasty but you don't have to be a technological wizard to
> doctor photos, especially electronically. A cow whose udder touches the
> ground cannot be milked, the machines will not work, it is that simple.
> Sagging udders used to be a lot more of a problem thirty years
> ago before the breeders got their act together. I can remember there
> used to be a firm in Ireland that as a sideline made bra's for cows in
> the 1960s and 70s
Is there still info around? We occasionally get this problem with ewes and
although we don't breed from them again, it would be nice to have an aid
for the current lactation. The problem we found was that if it went far
enough back to stop them being able to get their back feet into it it would
collect urine.
Jane
> --
> Jim Webster
> "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
--
Jane G : j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk : S Devon
Oz
>An inexpensive, yet effective way to determine if the meat is really from a
>grass fed animal is to purchase the ground beef. Slowly cook the beef till
>done and drain and collect all the fat. Grass fed beef is very high in
>omega-3 fats and will be relatively thin compared to traditionally prepared
>ground beef.
>
>It will also be a liquid at room temperature as it has very few saturated
>fats which are mostly solid at room temperature.
Rubbish.
If you get lard that's liquid at room temp then you have not been
cooking beef.
Remember in the 50's there was very little (no?) grain fattened beef in
the UK. Cereals were just too expensive. You got yellow fat meat and the
lard was solid. Note that the UK produced no maize then (so it wasn't
yellow from maize), but yellow from the grass.
Jim Webster
Jane Gillett <j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b3c9232e...@stertfarm.co.uk...
> In article <acn9e7$qt5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> Is there still info around? We occasionally get this problem with ewes
and
> although we don't breed from them again, it would be nice to have an
aid
> for the current lactation. The problem we found was that if it went
far
> enough back to stop them being able to get their back feet into it it
would
> collect urine.
> Jane
>
perhaps Greymaus might know? All I remember is seeing a semi humerous
piece in one of the farming magazines about 30 years ago.
Jim Webster
There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
> idea what percentage it would be.
beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off grass,
although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might winter on
silage plus a finishing ration.
Oz
>irius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
>There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
>> idea what percentage it would be.
>
>beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off grass,
>although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might winter on
>silage plus a finishing ration.
I don;t think you can put this in the same regime as an all-cereal diet
of true 'barley beef'. Maintenance and even M+bit from silage is nothing
like zero from herbage.
Sirius
> Sirius writes
No I didn't. I pasted a bit of Hua Kuls link. Thanks for your comments on
it.
Sirius
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:acqg7m$3pu$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
> > idea what percentage it would be.
>
> beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off grass,
> although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might winter on
> silage plus a finishing ration.
I didn't notice at first that the 2 links Hua Kul gave both link to a site
selling . . guess what . . grass fattened organic beef. This does not
negate the claims of course and I do notice there are quite a few other
sites (google: grass fattened meat omega 3) making this claim - that grass
fed meat is high in Omega 3 and that most people would benefit from more.
Sounds good news to me, so all you veggies out there - if you want to be fit
and healthy go to your butcher and ask for some grass fed lamb or beef . . .
Oz
Ooops, sorry ...
suzee
> Er, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning sue. As i milk cows for a
> living i am aware of the invention of the milking machine. It isn't however,
> fully automated, (apart from a few robot milkers), and still needs an
> operator to put the clusters on, that's what we mean by 'milking'.
>
> Oz's point that the cows with very large udders would make milking difficult
> is indeed correct,my point was that if one didn't have to put the cluster on
> yourself you might not be so worried. However, no matter how unconcerned the
> manager was about the welfare of his staff or his animals, such cows would
> hardly be desirable for a host of other reasons, so i think Oz is right in
> suggesting that photos of cows with their udders dragging on the ground were
> either altered or taken some time ago.
>
> I think though that by arguing about minor points of animal welfare we are
> drifting off topic, ans in effect tryig to excuse what is going on in the
> american beef and dairy industry. This is understandable, as i think Jim
> said earlier, AR groups tend to lump british farming in with the more
> industrialised farming of the US, which instantly puts us on the defensive.
> I'm inclined to think that we, as British farmers, would be better off
> saying 'yes, this sort of farming is unsustainable, it is inhumane, and most
> probably downright unhealthy, but we don't do it like that.'
>
> Personally, I can't see why anyone would be so keen to eat corn fed beef
> anyway, give me a grass fed aberdeen angus roast anyday.
Guess you're right, I forgot about needing people intervention to attach
the machines....
I grew up on grass/alfalfa fed beef; we lived on a family farm (as
distinguished from a corporate farm) and raised our own. I don't believe
my dad fed them grain, or maybe just a little before butchering.
sue
suzee
>
> Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
> > idea what percentage it would be.
>
> beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off grass,
> although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might winter on
> silage plus a finishing ration.
Grass hay is fed to them in the winter. Not as tasty as the fresh stuff,
but not grain either.
sue
suzee
> I didn't notice at first that the 2 links Hua Kul gave both link to a site
> selling . . guess what . . grass fattened organic beef. This does not
> negate the claims of course and I do notice there are quite a few other
> sites (google: grass fattened meat omega 3) making this claim - that grass
> fed meat is high in Omega 3 and that most people would benefit from more.
> Sounds good news to me, so all you veggies out there - if you want to be fit
> and healthy go to your butcher and ask for some grass fed lamb or beef . . .
The reason for the links is to make grass fed beef available to those
wishing to purchase it, if they can't find some locally.
sue
Jim Webster
> I didn't notice at first that the 2 links Hua Kul gave both link to a
site
> selling . . guess what . . grass fattened organic beef. This does not
> negate the claims of course and I do notice there are quite a few
other
> sites (google: grass fattened meat omega 3) making this claim - that
grass
> fed meat is high in Omega 3 and that most people would benefit from
more.
> Sounds good news to me, so all you veggies out there - if you want to
be fit
> and healthy go to your butcher and ask for some grass fed lamb or beef
. . .
>
with regards to the nature of fats, two details I remember.
1) Some years ago there was work done with swill fed pigs and those
getting kitchen waste. It was discovered that as the amounts of
margarine and similar fats in their diet increased you got a lot of oily
back fat in the pig, the nature of the animals fatty deposits changed.
This was quoted a bit in the farming papers at the time.
2) Our bullocks are grass fed and the lard very rapidly sets hard and is
not at all oily or runny, hence I am not at all sure as to the test to
tell grass fed beef from grain fed.
Jim Webster
I assume hay is not a finishing ration? In my grandfathers day he
wintered on hay, and finished bullocks on Hay, turnips and oats.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> sue
suzee
>
> suzee <qiu...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF11A...@nidlink.com...
> > Jim Webster wrote:
> > >
> > > Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > > news:sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
> > > > idea what percentage it would be.
> > >
> > > beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off
> grass,
> > > although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might
> winter on
> > > silage plus a finishing ration.
> >
> > Grass hay is fed to them in the winter. Not as tasty as the fresh
> stuff,
> > but not grain either.
>
> I assume hay is not a finishing ration? In my grandfathers day he
> wintered on hay, and finished bullocks on Hay, turnips and oats.
Hay is grass, cut and dried, then either put up in bales or left loose
in a stack (haystack). It gets them through the winter.
sue
Hua Kul
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:acqg7m$3pu$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > There is plenty grass fattened beef in the UK, but I've no
> > > idea what percentage it would be.
> >
> > beef finished over winter cannot by definition be finished off grass,
> > although they will tend to have been raised on grass and might winter on
> > silage plus a finishing ration.
Diagram 2 on the page in this link shows a graph of omega3 content vs.
time for beef taken off grass and fed grains. After 60 days the
omega3 content is about 50% less.
http://www.eatwild.com/benefits.html
>
>
> I didn't notice at first that the 2 links Hua Kul gave both link to a site
> selling . . guess what . . grass fattened organic beef. This does not
> negate the claims of course...
Thank you. I apologize for not including the disclaimer that I am a
disinterested visitor to the site.
--Hua Kul
Jim Webster
I know what hay is, I made it often enough until we switched to silage
(making hay when you have more than four feet of rain a year can be a
trying experience. It is just that from our experience hay is not a bad
maintenance ration, but they cannot eat enough to fatten properly. The
last one of our family to fatten cattle over winter was my grandfather
who supplemented it with turnips and oats (which are the arable crops
they grew round here forty years ago) while those few we fatten in
winter get grass silage (ad lib) and (last winter) a couple of kilos a
day of maize gluten. Remember with the UK Over Thirty Months Scheme
which is part of the BSE measures, once an animal gets over 30 months
old it can no longer end up in the food chain, so the carcasses of mlk
cows are incinerated when they come to the end of their working life,
and beef cattle cannot be more than 30 months old) we have to fatten
younger cattle than was possible pre-1996. Bigger older cattle can cope
with a higher proportion of grass/hay/silage in their diet and still
finish to an acceptable standard.
greymaus
>
> Jane Gillett <j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4b3c9232e...@stertfarm.co.uk...
>> In article <acn9e7$qt5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>> Is there still info around? We occasionally get this problem with ewes
> and
>> although we don't breed from them again, it would be nice to have an
> aid
>> for the current lactation. The problem we found was that if it went
> far
>> enough back to stop them being able to get their back feet into it it
> would
>> collect urine.
>> Jane
>>
>
> perhaps Greymaus might know? All I remember is seeing a semi humerous
> piece in one of the farming magazines about 30 years ago.
>
A dim memory . Waay back . Pendoulous (sp)? udders would be a major
genetic problem , best corrected by selling those affected . We had
Dairy Shorthorn's here years ago , whose udders were too compact .
Mastitis . All these things would be caused by breeders who breed with
just one aim (yield) in view , which would indicate that the best
people to deal with would be an owner who was close to the operation .
These sort of udders would cause problems with dirt , mastitis from
hitting swinging udders , and getting the milking machine on . With
the dividing of farming into specialist areas , people outside
dairying don't know the problems which appear there . I believe that
extreme Holsteins are hard to get in calf without major meal feeding .
From what I read and hear , the Californian and Floridan dairies which
have mushroomed over the last few years are major animal-welfare
disasters , as opposed to the people in Wisconsin who have been
dairying for generations . Probably financial disasters too , masked
by savage employee exploitation .
Is sheep , I have noticed the problem in Scotch Horned ewes and
crosses . Only one answer , anything getting that way culled .
>
> --
> Jim Webster
>
> "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
>>
>> > --
>> > Jim Webster
>>
>> > "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>>
>> > 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jane G : j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk : S
> Devon
>
>
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
of most grass hay will make for a pretty rough winter for calves even it
they could eat enough to get the energy that they needed to gain weight.
I have live is one of the best climates to put up hay and putting up grass
hay with enough protein for calves is very hard to do.
Sirius
> Diagram 2 on the page in this link shows a graph of omega3 content vs.
> time for beef taken off grass and fed grains. After 60 days the
> omega3 content is about 50% less.
> http://www.eatwild.com/benefits.html
This is mind blowing stuff - We don't get enough Omega 3 and grass fed meat
has lots. Why is this such a well kept secret? Isn't it just what the meat
industry needs?
Hua Kul
>
> No grass fattened beef in America??!! That suprises me. Anyone know?
>
find grass fed meats because of the high omega3 content. I know it's
readily available on the internet, but I wanted to find a source close
to home. I live in Cleveland, Ohio. The city and it's surrounding
area has a population of about 2 million. My first stop was a large
ethnically-oriented market that has scores of vendors of fresh foods.
Of the dozens of meat stands I could find no one selling grass fed or
free range beef, pork, or chicken. Some stands sold lamb and goat,
but they could not tell me if it was grass fed. I did find one stand
selling eggs from free range chickens, and there were some European
cheeses at another stand that might be from grass fed cows. Then I
found an Arab grocer in my neighborhood that had grass fed lamb and
free range chicken. I live about 50 miles from Amish country and will
find out if they can provide the beef and cheeses. I also live about
30 miles from areas where small farmers raise a few head of cattle and
I'll find out if they feed them on grass. But, no, in general the
beef in America is all grain-fed.
--Hua Kul
Jim Webster
remember much of US grassland is pretty dry with low rainfall. I suspect
grass finishing on any sort of large scale could be virtually
impossible. With agriculture climate is the important thing.
We manage in the UK because in our case four feet of rain is a dry year.
Karen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>I thought that horrid zone there on the way up to Fresno was pigs, since it
>seems to be worse than the standard stockyards down by Riverside/ N. Corona
>where the 60 crosses the 15.
Isn't that mostly dairy, there in the Corona area? Quite the aroma
sometimes, depending on where you are and which way the wind is
blowing.
Karen
David B
> Hua Kul <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3da4c6e5.02052...@posting.google.com...
> > "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:<sV2I8.3590$t8.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > >
> > > No grass fattened beef in America??!! That suprises me. Anyone know?
> > >
> > I do. I live in America. A couple of weeks ago I began my quest to
> > find grass fed meats because of the high omega3 content. I know it's
> > readily available on the internet, but I wanted to find a source close
> > to home. I live in Cleveland, Ohio. The city and it's surrounding
> > area has a population of about 2 million. My first stop was a large
> > ethnically-oriented market that has scores of vendors of fresh foods.
> > Of the dozens of meat stands I could find no one selling grass fed or
> > free range beef, pork, or chicken. Some stands sold lamb and goat,
> > but they could not tell me if it was grass fed. I did find one stand
> > selling eggs from free range chickens, and there were some European
> > cheeses at another stand that might be from grass fed cows. Then I
> > found an Arab grocer in my neighborhood that had grass fed lamb and
> > free range chicken. I live about 50 miles from Amish country and will
> > find out if they can provide the beef and cheeses. I also live about
> > 30 miles from areas where small farmers raise a few head of cattle and
> > I'll find out if they feed them on grass. But, no, in general the
> > beef in America is all grain-fed.
> >
> > --Hua Kul
I think that you are unlikely to find grass fattened beef for sale in your
area or the UK between November and May. Most cattle are on a Silage or Hay
based ration until April then will need a couple of months at grass to
fatten.
In the UK it will be end of June / Early July before grass fattened beef
comes onto the market. Suggest you need a big freezer to get you through the
winter
David B
Hua Kul
No, it's what meat eaters need. All the meat "industry" needs is a
cheaper way to get a product to market that people will buy. 100 or
so years ago (in the US at least) virtually all meat was as high in
omega3 as fish, due to grass feeding or free range foraging. So was
the milk and eggs. It was relatively more expensive than today, so
people ate less of it. But tissue levels of n-3 are somewhat
cumulative, so the net result was people had much higher adipose
tissue levels of n-3 than they do today, and consequently much lower
levels of what we call chronic diseases. Since finding out some of
this stuff I've been changing my diet. From now on the only meat or
eggs I eat will be from free range animals, as much as possible.
--Hua Kul
Sirius
> "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:<3YnI8.13775$Uk6.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > "Hua Kul" <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3da4c6e5.02052...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > > Diagram 2 on the page in this link shows a graph of omega3 content vs.
> > > time for beef taken off grass and fed grains. After 60 days the
> > > omega3 content is about 50% less.
> > > http://www.eatwild.com/benefits.html
> >
> >
> > This is mind blowing stuff - We don't get enough Omega 3 and grass fed
meat
> > has lots. Why is this such a well kept secret? Isn't it just what the
meat
> > industry needs?
>
> No, it's what meat eaters need. All the meat "industry" needs is a
> cheaper way to get a product to market that people will buy.
Thats one way to make money. Another is to produce a premium product that
people will pay more for.
>100 or
> so years ago (in the US at least) virtually all meat was as high in
> omega3 as fish, due to grass feeding or free range foraging. So was
> the milk and eggs. It was relatively more expensive than today, so
> people ate less of it. But tissue levels of n-3 are somewhat
> cumulative, so the net result was people had much higher adipose
> tissue levels of n-3 than they do today, and consequently much lower
> levels of what we call chronic diseases. Since finding out some of
> this stuff I've been changing my diet. From now on the only meat or
> eggs I eat will be from free range animals, as much as possible.
I'm glad you posted about this as I hadn't heard about it and intend to read
up about it when I get a chance. What I meant above is that the meat
industry is in trouble as people are eating less and less meat. There are
scare stories every few weeks that turn more people off it. It would be
great if it got publicity as the safe source of an essential nutrient. There
is plenty good quality grass finished meat in the UK. I expect there would
be too in USA if there was the demand. We are organic here and the meat is
grass finished. Lots of people think organic is a con. I always thought the
quality was superb. Perhaps the omega 3 is one reason.
Hua Kul
> <snip>
> up about it when I get a chance. What I meant above is that the meat
> industry is in trouble as people are eating less and less meat. There are
> scare stories every few weeks that turn more people off it. It would be
> great if it got publicity as the safe source of an essential nutrient. There
> is plenty good quality grass finished meat in the UK. I expect there would
> be too in USA if there was the demand. We are organic here and the meat is
> grass finished. Lots of people think organic is a con. I always thought the
> quality was superb. Perhaps the omega 3 is one reason.
I agree with you Sirius, I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. I've just
found out about this recently and am trying to take advantage of it.
I hate having to choke down a handful of fish oil capsules every day.
I'm glad to hear about the availability of grass fed meat in the UK,
there are many things about your country I admire and would like to
spend some extended time there someday. In the US there aren't too
many altruistic businessmen, everything is consumer driven so things
won't change on a large scale until there is much greater demand.
Right now I have some grass fed goat meat roasting in the oven. My
wife won't eat lamb and I haven't found a local source of beef in
small quantities. I'll be getting some chickens from the Amish and
will try to find out if they also do beef. But I am determined that
from this time on I will only eat grass fed, as much as is possible.
Now I REALLY don't know where to get non-grain fed pork spareribs.
What do pigs eat if not grain?
--Hua Kul
Hua Kul
>
> >An inexpensive, yet effective way to determine if the meat is really from a
> >grass fed animal is to purchase the ground beef. Slowly cook the beef till
> >done and drain and collect all the fat. Grass fed beef is very high in
> >omega-3 fats and will be relatively thin compared to traditionally prepared
> >ground beef.
> >
> >It will also be a liquid at room temperature as it has very few saturated
> >fats which are mostly solid at room temperature.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> If you get lard that's liquid at room temp then you have not been
> cooking beef.
>
is only about 10% saturated. The more saturated a fat is the harder
it will be at room temperature. That's why corn oil is hydrogenated
to make margarine, it chemically fills empty positions on the molecule
and "saturates" it enough to make it solid at room temperature. When
I cook my first grass fed beef I'll post the fat watch results.
--Hua Kul
Hua Kul
Here's a link to a 4,000 acre ranch in central Ohio, about 150mi. from
me. They raise cattle strictly on pasture year round, even the
calving is done in the open. The ranch is on a reclaimed coal strip
mine. The average rainfall is 41" and temperatures range from -25F to
105F. They raise the old Longhorn breed. This is definitely not the
usual thing.
http://www.texaslonghorn.com/tour/index.shtml
http://www.head2tail.com/contact.shtml
--Hua Kul
Oz
>Fat from grain fed beef is about 50% saturated, but fat from grass fed
>is only about 10% saturated.
This also depends on the length of the acid chains in the fat.
It's perfectly possible to have unsaturated fats solid at room
temperature if the molecules are long, and saturated ones liquid if they
are short.
The criterion is that they must be liquid at body temperature.
Hua Kul
> Hua Kul writes
>
> >Fat from grain fed beef is about 50% saturated, but fat from grass fed
> >is only about 10% saturated.
>
> This also depends on the length of the acid chains in the fat.
> It's perfectly possible to have unsaturated fats solid at room
> temperature if the molecules are long, and saturated ones liquid if they
> are short.
>
> The criterion is that they must be liquid at body temperature.
Yesterday for the first time I roasted a couple of pounds of grass fed
goat meat. I poured the resulting juices into a cup and set it on the
counter. After eight hours, by which time I'm sure it had achieved
room temperature (outside temp was about 75F), the layer of fat was
still liquid and transparent. Overnight in the fridge it turned hard
and opaque. That tells me it's not very saturated.
By the way, your signature line says "This post is worth absolutely
nothing and is probably fallacious." If you have so little confidence
in your own opinions, why do you post them?
--Hua Kul
Oz
>
>Yesterday for the first time I roasted a couple of pounds of grass fed
>goat meat. I poured the resulting juices into a cup and set it on the
>counter. After eight hours, by which time I'm sure it had achieved
>room temperature (outside temp was about 75F), the layer of fat was
>still liquid and transparent. Overnight in the fridge it turned hard
>and opaque. That tells me it's not very saturated.
UK sheepmeat is virtually 100% grass fattened, as is new zealand.
The fat sets hard at room temperature.
So please don't try to con me.
>By the way, your signature line says "This post is worth absolutely
>nothing and is probably fallacious." If you have so little confidence
>in your own opinions, why do you post them?
It allows people to make their own judgement.
Explicitly.
--
Oz
sandie
> I read a persons account of milking cows in New Zealand .
> Every morning , milk cows,
> remove dead cows ,
> next job (on some farms , dose with anti-bloat agent)
Where did you read that Greymaus?
greymaus
From memory ( don't sue me ) , a report in the Irish farmers Journal
from someone who worked in New Zealand . They generally loved the
country . If I am correct , NZ cows are a holstein-jersey sort of cow
which are not very hardy . Lots of young farmers are going there ,
prospects . While they are a major competitor to European farmers ,
their product is grade-A healty wise . There was a scare recently here
when chicken imported from Thailand through Holland was discovered to
have been injected with brine and some beef product to boost weights ,
that sort of thing does nobody any good
Hua Kul
>
> UK sheepmeat is virtually 100% grass fattened, as is new zealand.
> The fat sets hard at room temperature.
>
I guess it could get a little chilly without central heat.
--Hua Kul
Sirius
No he is right. The fat of a grass finished sheep sets pretty hard at normal
room temp. You should try an experiment to see if you can detect any
difference.
Hua Kul
I reported my experience with rendered goat fat and Oz called me a
liar (although he did say please). I will go buy some grass fed lamb
and roast it, and observe the rendered fat for 2-3 days at room
temperature and report my results. But there is no guarantee he will
believe me about that, either. Maybe your sheep are hiding the corn
and only eat it when the farmer isn't looking.
--Hua Kul
Michelle Fulton
>
>
>
> I'm glad you posted about this as I hadn't heard about it and intend to
read
> up about it when I get a chance. What I meant above is that the meat
> industry is in trouble as people are eating less and less meat. There are
> scare stories every few weeks that turn more people off it. It would be
> great if it got publicity as the safe source of an essential nutrient.
You could put advertising out like our (US) beef industry does saying "Real
Food for Real People", or wouldn't that fly in the UK. It sounds kind of,
well, redneck, doesn't it? But it works. I think it appeals more to the
male population, though. Does your beef industry not advertise?
Michelle
>There
> is plenty good quality grass finished meat in the UK. I expect there would
> be too in USA if there was the demand. We are organic here and the meat is
> grass finished. Lots of people think organic is a con. I always thought
the
> quality was superb. Perhaps the omega 3 is one reason.
>
I agree that organic is the better way to go and am trying to buy as may
organic foods as possible, but I'm also turning away from meat because of
the links of meat based diets (all meats, not just red meat) to a great many
diseases.
Michelle
Michelle Fulton
> By the way, your signature line says "This post is worth absolutely
> nothing and is probably fallacious." If you have so little confidence
> in your own opinions, why do you post them?
>
That's just his sense of humor. Believe me, he has EVERY confidence in his
posts!!!!!!! .....and he is very intelligent and apparently well read.
Michelle
Sirius
> "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:<nKxK8.40303$wd3.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > "Hua Kul" <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3da4c6e5.0206...@posting.google.com...
> > > Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<wPAOeZAm...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>...
> > > >
> > > > UK sheepmeat is virtually 100% grass fattened, as is new zealand.
> > > > The fat sets hard at room temperature.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess it could get a little chilly without central heat.
> > >
> >
> > No he is right. The fat of a grass finished sheep sets pretty hard at
normal
> > room temp. You should try an experiment to see if you can detect any
> > difference.
>
> I reported my experience with rendered goat fat and Oz called me a
> liar (although he did say please).
Sorry, I forgot that. But unless you compare it fairly with non-grass-fed
meat, It may say more about your room temp and cooking methods than the
qualities of the fat.
> I will go buy some grass fed lamb
> and roast it, and observe the rendered fat for 2-3 days at room
> temperature and report my results. But there is no guarantee he will
> believe me about that, either. Maybe your sheep are hiding the corn
> and only eat it when the farmer isn't looking.
I suppose they could hide it down the rabbit holes, but where would they
find the money to buy it?
Sirius
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uVWK8.3455$Qb4.16...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:c_dJ8.8131$g63.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm glad you posted about this as I hadn't heard about it and intend to
> read
> > up about it when I get a chance. What I meant above is that the meat
> > industry is in trouble as people are eating less and less meat. There
are
> > scare stories every few weeks that turn more people off it. It would be
> > great if it got publicity as the safe source of an essential nutrient.
>
> You could put advertising out like our (US) beef industry does saying
"Real
> Food for Real People", or wouldn't that fly in the UK. It sounds kind of,
> well, redneck, doesn't it? But it works. I think it appeals more to the
> male population, though. Does your beef industry not advertise?
I'll leave that question to someone else. I don't think the advertise much
but then I don't have TV. The media scare stories are probably amount to a
powerful negative advertising campaign.
>
> Michelle
>
> >There
> > is plenty good quality grass finished meat in the UK. I expect there
would
> > be too in USA if there was the demand. We are organic here and the meat
is
> > grass finished. Lots of people think organic is a con. I always thought
> the
> > quality was superb. Perhaps the omega 3 is one reason.
> >
>
> I agree that organic is the better way to go and am trying to buy as may
> organic foods as possible, but I'm also turning away from meat because of
> the links of meat based diets (all meats, not just red meat) to a great
many
> diseases.
>
> Michelle
You are probably reading this as some other newsgroup to me, so I will
repost something about Soya that Oz (re)posted a few days ago. Sounds like
it might be important to those who give up meat:
Copied from sci.ag
==========================
On Tue, 28 May 2002 18:57:20 +0200, Torsten Brinch
<ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 May 2002 09:40:59 -0400, "Tracy Aquilla"
><aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote:
>
>>Where is the proof that soya is safe?
>
Fit for Human Consumption? The Chinese did not eat the soybean as they
did other pulses (legumes) such as the lentil, because the soybean
contains large quantities of a number of harmful a substances. First
among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of
trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.
These"antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary
cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein
digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test
animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and
pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. The soybean
also contains hemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes
red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and
hemagglutinin have been rightly labeled growth depressant substances.
Fortunately they are deactivated during the process of fermentation.
However, in precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in
the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean
curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not
completely eliminated.
Soybeans are also high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic
acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the
uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially
zinc-in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytates
have been extensively studied. Scientists are in general agreement
that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to
widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries.
Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in
the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of
soy and rice based diets prevents their absorption. The soybean has a
higher phytate content than any other grain or legume that has been
studied. Furthermore, it seems to be highly resistant to many phytate
reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of
fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of
soybeans. Thus fermented products such as tempeh and miso provide
nourishment that is easily assimilated, but the nutritional value of
tofu and bean curd, both high in phytates, is questionable.
When precipitated soy products are consumed with meat, the mineral
blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese
traditionally eat tofu as part of a mineral-rich fish broth.
Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat
and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of
calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known, those of zinc
are less so. Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is
needed for optimal development and functioning of the brain and
nervous system. It plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen
formation, it Is involved in the blood sugar control mechanism and
thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy
reproductive system.
Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in
the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc
absorption more completely than with other minerals. Literature
extolling soy products tends to minimize the role of zinc in human
physiology, and to gloss over the deleterious effect of diets high in
phytic acid.
Milk drinking is given as the reason second generation Japanese in
America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators
postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American
diet-whatever maybe its other deficiencies-is the true explanation,
pointing out that Asian and Oriental children who do not get enough
meat and fish products to counteract the effects of a high phytate
diet, frequently suffer rickets, stunting and other growth problems.
Marketing the Soybean The truth is, however, that most Americans are
unlikely to adopt traditional soy products as their principle food.
Tofu, bean curd and tempeh have disagreeable texture and are too bland
for the Western palate; pungent and tasty miso and natto lose out in
taste; only soy sauce enjoys widespread popularity as a condiment. The
soy industry has therefore looked for other ways to market the
superabundance of soybeans now grown in the United States.
Large scale cultivation of the soybean in the United States began only
after the Second World War, and quickly rose to 140 billion pounds per
year. Most of the crop is made into animal feed, soy oil for
hydrogenated fats margarine and shortening. During the past 20 years,
the industry has concentrated on finding markets for the byproducts of
soy oil manufacture, including soy "lecithin", made from the oil
sludge, and soy protein products, made from defatted soy flakes, a
challenge that has involved overcoming consumer resistance to soy
products, generally considered tasteless "poverty foods.
The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent
society," said a soy industry spokesman, " ... is to have the product
consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society."" Hence the
proliferation of soy products resembling traditional American
foods-soy milk for cows milk, soy baby formula, soy yogurt, soy ice
cream, soy cheese, soy flour for baking and textured soy protein as
meat substitutes, usually promoted as high protein, low-fat, no
cholesterol "health foods" to the upscale consumer increasingly
concerned about his health. The growth of vegetarianism among the more
affluent classes has greatly accelerated the acceptability and use of
these artificial products. Unfortunately they pose numerous dangers.
Processing Denatures and Dangers Remain The production of soy milk is
relatively simple. In order to remove as much of the trypsin inhibitor
content as possible, the beans are first soaked in an alkaline
solution. The pureed solution is then heated to about 115 degrees
Centigrade in a pressure cooker. This method destroys most (but not
all) of the anti-nutrients but has the unhappy side effect of so
denaturing the proteins that they become very difficult to digest and
much reduced in effectiveness. The phytate content remains in soy milk
to block the uptake of essential minerals. In addition, the alkaline
soaking solution produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, and reduces the
cystine content, which is already low in the soybean. Lacking cystine,
the entire protein complex of the soybean becomes useless unless the
diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, eggs, or dairy products.
Most soy products that imitate traditional American food items,
including baby formulas and some brands of soy milk, are made with soy
protein isolate, that is the soy protein isolated from the
carbohydrate and fatty acid components that naturally occur in the
bean. Soy beans are first ground and subjected to high-temperature and
solvent extraction processes to remove the oils. The resultant
defatted meal is then mixed with an alkaline solution and sugars in a
separation process to remove fiber. Then it is precipitated and
separated using an acid wash. Finally the resultant curds are
neutralized in an alkaline solution and spray dried at high
temperatures to produce high protein powder.
This is a highly refined product in which both vitamin and protein
quality are compromised-but some trypsin inhibitors remain, even after
such extreme refining. Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein
isolate can vary as much as 5-fold. In rats, even low level trypsin
inhibitor soy protein isolate feeding results in reduced weight gain
compared to controls. Soy product producers are not required to state
trypsin inhibitor content on labels, nor even to meet minimum
standards, and the public, trained to avoid dietary cholesterol, a
substance vital for normal growth and metabolism, has never heard of
the potent anti-nutrients found in cholesterol-free soy products.
Soy Formula Is Not the Answer Soy protein isolate is the main
ingredient of soy-based infant formulas. Along with trypsin
inhibitors, these formulas have a high phytate content. Use of soy
formula has caused zinc deficiency in infants. Aluminum content of soy
formula is 10 times greater than milk based formula, and 100 times
greater than unprocessed milk. Aluminum has a toxic effect on the
kidneys of infants, and has been implicated as cause in Alzheimer's in
adults.
Soy milk formulas are often given to babies with milk allergy; but
allergies to soy are almost as common as those to milk. Soy formulas
lack cholesterol which is absolutely essential for the development of
the brain and nervous system; they also lack lactose and galactose,
which play an equally important role in the development of the nervous
system. I would strongly discourage the use of soy formulas.
Nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens, are often found in soy
protein foods, and are greatly increased during the high temperature
drying process. Not surprisingly, animal feeding studies show a lower
weight gain for rats on soy formula than those on whole milk,
high-lactose formula; similar results have been observed in children
on macrobiotic diets which include the use of soy milk and large
amounts of whole grains. Children brought up on high-phytate diets
tend to be thin and scrawny.
Fabricated Soy Foods A final indignity to the original soy bean is
high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein
isolate to product textured vegetable protein (TVP). Numerous
artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to TVP products to
mask their strong "beany" taste, and impart the flavor of meat. Soy
protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are used extensively in
school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet beverages and fast
food products. They are heavily promoted in third world countries and
form the basis of many food give-away programs. These soy products
greatly inhibit zinc and iron absorption; in test animals they cause
enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and
increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.
Human feeding tests to determine the cholesterol lowering properties
of soy protein isolate have not shown them to be effective.
Nevertheless, they are often promoted as having beneficial effects on
cholesterol levels.
Cancer Preventing or Cancer Causing? The food industry also touts soy
products for their cancer preventing properties. Isoflavone aglycones
are anticarcinogenic substances found in traditionally fermented
soybean products. However, in non-fermented soy products such as tofu
and soy milk, these isoflavones are present in an altered form as
beta-glycoside conjugates, which have no anti-carcinogenic effect.
Some researchers believe the rapid increase in liver and pancreatic
cancer in Africa is due to the introduction of soy products there.
The fatty acid profile of the soybean includes large amounts of
beneficial omega-3 fatty acids compared to other pulses legumes); but
these omega-3 fatty acids are particularly susceptible to rancidity
when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. This is exactly
what is required to remove oil from the bean, as soybean oil is
particularly difficult to extract. hexane or other solvents are always
used to extract oil from soybeans, and traces remain in the commercial
product.
While fermented soy products contain protein, vitamins,
anti-carcinogenic substances and important fatty acids, they can under
no circumstances be called nutritionally complete. Like all pulses,
the soybean lacks vital sulfur-containing amino acids cystine and
methionine. These are usually supplied by rice and other grains in
areas where the soybean is traditionally consumed. Soy should never be
considered as a substitute for animal products like meat or milk.
Claims that fermented soy products like tempeh can be relied on as a
source of vitamin B12, necessary for healthy blood and nervous system,
have not been supported by scientific research.,' Finally, soybeans do
not supply all-important fat soluble vitamins D and preformed A
(retinol) which act as catalysts for the proper absorption and
utilization of all minerals and water soluble vitamins in the diet.
These "fat soluble activators" are found only in certain animal foods
such as organ meats, butter, eggs, fish and shellfish. Carotenes from
plant foods and exposure to sunlight are not sufficient to supply the
body's requirements for vitamins A and D. Soy products often replace
animal products in third world countries where intake of B12 and fat
soluble A and D are already low. Soy products actually increase
requirements for vitamins B12 and D.
Are soy products easy to digest, as claimed? Fermented soy products
probably are; but unfermented products with their cargo of phytates,
enzyme inhibitors, rancid fatty acids and altered proteins most
certainly are not. Pet food manufacturers promote soy free dog and cat
food as "highly digestible"
Only Fermented Soy Products Are Safe To summarize, traditional
fermented soy products such as miso, natto and tempeh, which are
usually made with organically grown soybeans, have a long history of
use that is generally beneficial when combined with other elements of
the Oriental diet including rice, sea foods, fish broth, organ meats
and fermented vegetables. The value of precipitated soybean products
is problematical, especially when they form the major source of
protein in the diet. Modern soy products including soy milks and
artificial meat and dairy products made from soy protein isolate and
textured vegetable protein are new to the diet and pose a number of
serious problems.
The above information was abstracted from an article written by Sally
Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D. (an international expert renown in the
field of lipid chemistry) for Health Freedom News in September of
1995.
Hamish Macbeth
>
> "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uVWK8.3455$Qb4.16...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:c_dJ8.8131$g63.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm glad you posted about this as I hadn't heard about it and intend
to
> > read
> > > up about it when I get a chance. What I meant above is that the meat
> > > industry is in trouble as people are eating less and less meat. There
> are
> > > scare stories every few weeks that turn more people off it. It would
be
> > > great if it got publicity as the safe source of an essential nutrient.
> >
> > You could put advertising out like our (US) beef industry does saying
> "Real
> > Food for Real People", or wouldn't that fly in the UK. It sounds kind
of,
> > well, redneck, doesn't it? But it works. I think it appeals more to the
> > male population, though. Does your beef industry not advertise?
>
>
> I'll leave that question to someone else. I don't think the advertise much
> but then I don't have TV. The media scare stories are probably amount to a
> powerful negative advertising campaign.
>
>
> >
> > Michelle
>
I don't notice a lot of adverts directly for beef. Probably the Bisto
adverts are the nearest.
Macdonalds is heavily advertised, but I would'nt count that as food let
alone an advert for beef.
/Start Whinge
As Michelle is American she may not have seen the stories where Macdonalds
sue Scottish families for using the name Macdonald
in buissiness. Such as MacDonalds Sandwiches a small one shop buissiness run
by a Mrs MacDonald .
MacDonalds Corp claim prior use, which is strange since the MacDonalds clan
have been around longer than European occupation of America.
/End Whinge
Jim Webster
Hua Kul <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
But there is no guarantee he will
> believe me about that, either. Maybe your sheep are hiding the corn
> and only eat it when the farmer isn't looking.
>
> --Hua Kul
we kill grass fed cattle and the fat is hard at ordinary room
temperatures. (50 to 60 F, no problem) if you go higher, towards blood
heat then all animal fats should be pretty sloshy, this is done to save
the embarassment of having your body set solid on you.
Oz
>"Sirius" <rive...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<nKxK8.40303$wd3.6243353@new
>> No he is right. The fat of a grass finished sheep sets pretty hard at normal
>> room temp. You should try an experiment to see if you can detect any
>> difference.
>
>I reported my experience with rendered goat fat and Oz called me a
>liar (although he did say please). I will go buy some grass fed lamb
>and roast it, and observe the rendered fat for 2-3 days at room
>temperature and report my results. But there is no guarantee he will
>believe me about that, either.
I won't, simply because what to you seems a novelty is to most of us
here simply what you get (sheep) or what you used to get (beef).
Unless of course your room temperature is over 18C (summer) or 12C
(winter).
>Maybe your sheep are hiding the corn
>and only eat it when the farmer isn't looking.
You obviously don;t know much about NZ farming, let alone UK.
Michelle Fulton
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> we kill grass fed cattle and the fat is hard at ordinary room
> temperatures. (50 to 60 F, no problem) if you go higher, towards blood
> heat then all animal fats should be pretty sloshy, this is done to save
> the embarassment of having your body set solid on you.
> --
LOL! That would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it!?
suzee
> /Start Whinge
> As Michelle is American she may not have seen the stories where Macdonalds
> sue Scottish families for using the name Macdonald
> in buissiness. Such as MacDonalds Sandwiches a small one shop buissiness run
> by a Mrs MacDonald .
>
> MacDonalds Corp claim prior use, which is strange since the MacDonalds clan
> have been around longer than European occupation of America.
>
> /End Whinge
Yeah, typical corporate tactics. In California over 20 years ago, Bank
of America tried to sue a bar in a small town called Bar of America...
they claimed people would confuse the two. And Bacardi rum got an
injunction against a tiny glove making company here in the woods of the
American North West because they used a bat as their logo. The company
was called BatWaves and their bat had sunglasses - didn't look at all
like the small one on the Bacardi label. After a couple years, they came
up with some t-shirts with the bat as a skeleton and the phrase, Rum
Kills Bats. :)
sue
David P
Steady on Michelle - that is simlpy 'not done' on UBA <g> - Oz may
gain the impression that people read what he writes and actually enjoy
it.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!
Steve Harris
COMMENT
Indeed it would. It's NOT an accident that cold water fish are full of the
most exquisitely polyunsaturated fats, with the lowest solidification
temperatures of all.
If you fed arctic seals and polar bears lard and let them live in the
climates where they DO live, you might get seal and polar bear sculpture...
On the other hand, feeding hogs high fish-fat diets has been tried, and the
bacon comes out an oily blobby mess which looks a litttle like the fresh
filet on sushi. This doesn't hurt the pigs if they get enough vitamin E, but
the consumers of bacon don't like it at all. Which is too bad, since it
would be a lot better for them.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Hamish Macbeth
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:adi39m$j17$3...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
And would explain the behaviour of my stomach when I turn suddenly :)
Jim Webster
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:adj0nb$ej1
> COMMENT
>
> Indeed it would. It's NOT an accident that cold water fish are full of
the
> most exquisitely polyunsaturated fats, with the lowest solidification
> temperatures of all.
>
> If you fed arctic seals and polar bears lard and let them live in the
> climates where they DO live, you might get seal and polar bear
sculpture...
>
> On the other hand, feeding hogs high fish-fat diets has been tried,
and the
> bacon comes out an oily blobby mess which looks a litttle like the
fresh
> filet on sushi. This doesn't hurt the pigs if they get enough vitamin
E, but
> the consumers of bacon don't like it at all. Which is too bad, since
it
> would be a lot better for them.
>
I remember reading the write up of some of the research, and it was as
you say. Apparently some researchers claimed that you could feel the
difference by pressing the back of a live pig, but how true that was I
wouldn't know
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Michelle Fulton
"David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cfceac...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 04:00:58 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
> <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hua Kul" <g...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> >news:3da4c6e5.02053...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >> By the way, your signature line says "This post is worth absolutely
> >> nothing and is probably fallacious." If you have so little confidence
> >> in your own opinions, why do you post them?
> >>
> >
> >That's just his sense of humor. Believe me, he has EVERY confidence in
his
> >posts!!!!!!! .....and he is very intelligent and apparently well read.
> >
> Steady on Michelle - that is simlpy 'not done' on UBA <g> - Oz may
> gain the impression that people read what he writes and actually enjoy
> it.
> --
LOL!
Hua Kul
> "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:6F2L8.8330$FL7.38...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> > news:adi39m$j17$3...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > we kill grass fed cattle and the fat is hard at ordinary room
> > > temperatures. (50 to 60 F, no problem) if you go higher, towards blood
> > > heat then all animal fats should be pretty sloshy, this is done to save
> > > the embarassment of having your body set solid on you.
> > > --
> >
> > LOL! That would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it!?
>
>
> COMMENT
>
> Indeed it would. It's NOT an accident that cold water fish are full of the
> most exquisitely polyunsaturated fats, with the lowest solidification
> temperatures of all.
>
> If you fed arctic seals and polar bears lard and let them live in the
> climates where they DO live, you might get seal and polar bear sculpture...
>
varied by more than a few degrees either way they would die.
> On the other hand, feeding hogs high fish-fat diets has been tried, and the
> bacon comes out an oily blobby mess which looks a litttle like the fresh
> filet on sushi. This doesn't hurt the pigs if they get enough vitamin E, but
> the consumers of bacon don't like it at all. Which is too bad, since it
> would be a lot better for them.
>
> SBH
This brings up the issue of medical studies regarding saturated fat in
the diet. The USDA lists the saturated fat content of beef as 49%,
which is probably what it has been since the beef industry went to
grain feeding. But in my readings I find references to a 10%
saturated fat content in grass fed beef. Since it's likely that
almost all meat eaten in the 19th century and earlier in the US was
grass fed or free range it seems likely that only since the beginning
of the 20th century have we eaten as much saturated fat as the studies
indicate would be bad for us. And, I don't think the studies take
into account the omega6:omega3 profile of the unsaturated portion of
the fat fed the study participants. I believe this might influence
the results.
--Hua Kul
Steve Harris
> > > > we kill grass fed cattle and the fat is hard at ordinary room
> > > > temperatures. (50 to 60 F, no problem) if you go higher, towards
blood
> > > > heat then all animal fats should be pretty sloshy, this is done to
save
> > > > the embarassment of having your body set solid on you.
> > > > --
> > >
> > > LOL! That would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it!?
> >
> >
> > COMMENT
> >
> > Indeed it would. It's NOT an accident that cold water fish are full of
the
> > most exquisitely polyunsaturated fats, with the lowest solidification
> > temperatures of all.
> >
> > If you fed arctic seals and polar bears lard and let them live in the
> > climates where they DO live, you might get seal and polar bear
sculpture...
> >
> Well, probably not, since they're mammals. If their body temperature
> varied by more than a few degrees either way they would die.
COMMENT:
That's their CORE temperature. Their skin and fat/blubber temperatures are
very different things.
Extremity temperatures can do amazing things in artic mammals also. Suggest
you do some reading.
Sirius
>
> This brings up the issue of medical studies regarding saturated fat in
> the diet. The USDA lists the saturated fat content of beef as 49%,
> which is probably what it has been since the beef industry went to
> grain feeding. But in my readings I find references to a 10%
> saturated fat content in grass fed beef. Since it's likely that
> almost all meat eaten in the 19th century and earlier in the US was
> grass fed or free range it seems likely that only since the beginning
> of the 20th century have we eaten as much saturated fat as the studies
> indicate would be bad for us. And, I don't think the studies take
> into account the omega6:omega3 profile of the unsaturated portion of
> the fat fed the study participants. I believe this might influence
> the results.
Regarding the grass fed fat being softer - an easy test to do would be to
buy some Anchor New Zealand butter (yellow) and some Lurpak Danish butter
which, being white, I presume is not grass fed. From using both butters, I'd
guess you would find the Anchor to be softer. I don't know however, what
other factors might influence the hardness of butter. (sorry if this has
nothing at all to do with what you just wrote)
Oz
>
>This brings up the issue of medical studies regarding saturated fat in
>the diet. The USDA lists the saturated fat content of beef as 49%,
>which is probably what it has been since the beef industry went to
>grain feeding. But in my readings I find references to a 10%
>saturated fat content in grass fed beef.
Maybe, however beware the source unless it's backed up by many similar
results done in the same period.
Even today people believe spinach is high in iron, when in fact that
data was taken from an (advertisers gift) missprinted datasheet in the
early part of the last century.
Oz
>Regarding the grass fed fat being softer - an easy test to do would be to
>buy some Anchor New Zealand butter (yellow) and some Lurpak Danish butter
>which, being white, I presume is not grass fed. From using both butters, I'd
>guess you would find the Anchor to be softer. I don't know however, what
>other factors might influence the hardness of butter. (sorry if this has
>nothing at all to do with what you just wrote)
You can produce softer butter by feeding high levels of vegetable oil
(you know, the stuff you find in vegetables like canola, maize, soya).
Unfortunately the amount you need to feed to produce a significant
difference is about 15% in the *total* diet, which really trashes rumen
fermentation bigtime. Using protected fats works, but HUGELY increases
costs to the point of making it utterly uneconomic.
Remember the work done to produce 'spread-from-the-fridge' butter?
Five Cats
Sirius <rive...@lycos.com> writes
Anchor butter is salted - Lurpak is not. That might make a difference
to the butter....
>
>
>
>
--
Five Cats
Jane Gillett
<snip>
> No they will argue:
> 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
> impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
If the EU's apparent plans to make UK arable only (if there is to be any
agric here at all), what do you reckon is going to happen to the west of
the UK?
Jane
<snip>
--
Jane G : j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk : S Devon
Michelle Fulton
>
> Even today people believe spinach is high in iron, when in fact that
> data was taken from an (advertisers gift) missprinted datasheet in the
> early part of the last century.
>
I believe it because Popeye The Sailorman told me ;-) Now that I've said
that, do y'all know who Popeye is?
M
Jim Webster
Jane Gillett <j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b41e1d5e...@stertfarm.co.uk...
> In article <D$4CSjKOnM$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
>
> <snip>
>
> > No they will argue:
>
> > 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
> > impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
>
> If the EU's apparent plans to make UK arable only (if there is to be
any
> agric here at all), what do you reckon is going to happen to the west
of
> the UK?
> Jane
I can see two options
1) it hasn't even been considered, not an unlikely option at that level
of EU thinking as there hasn't been a consultation process which would
bring out these small technical details.
2) It is to sink back to tourist based dog and stick .
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Oz
>I believe it because Popeye The Sailorman told me ;-) Now that I've said
>that, do y'all know who Popeye is?
Pluto.
David G. Bell
<4b41e1d5e...@stertfarm.co.uk>
j.gi...@stertfarm.co.uk "Jane Gillett" wrote:
> In article <D$4CSjKOnM$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
>
> <snip>
>
> > No they will argue:
>
> > 1) They are often reared where food from human constumption is
> > impossible as I have told you before (eg west of england).
>
> If the EU's apparent plans to make UK arable only (if there is to be any
> agric here at all), what do you reckon is going to happen to the west of
> the UK?
Looks like you'll get the same as the arable areas -- poverty-striken
desolation for those who don't meet the arbitrary standards of the local
councils and other bodies who decide where EU grants for rural
development are spent.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Jim Webster
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MaPRrKCRib$8E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
>
> >
> > Even today people believe spinach is high in iron, when in fact that
> > data was taken from an (advertisers gift) missprinted datasheet in
the
> > early part of the last century.
> >
>
> I believe it because Popeye The Sailorman told me ;-) Now that I've
said
> that, do y'all know who Popeye is?
>
> M
>
remember that for many people in the UK, suburban American is the world
of Tom and Jerry, urban America is described by Popeye and Top Cat
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> >
Hamish Macbeth
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
I would have said the The Flintstones and The Simpsons, although I try
and model myself on Wally in the Dilbert cartoons :)
>
>