The meat tree has been around since 2003, but no one seems to be making a big deal about it.

----
Tree That Give Meat Instead Of Fruit!
Friday May 16, 2003



By MICHAEL CHIRON

MANCHESTER, England -- Here's some good news that vegetarians can really sink their teeth into: Researchers have developed genetically engineered fruit trees that bear real meat!

Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But when you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.

"Our trees may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but it's really a simple, down-to-earth idea whose time has come," declares Dr. Vincent Tartley, director of agricultural bioengineering research for the UltraModAgri Group, which created the amazing trees. ...


The rest of the story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/915075/posts

Well this is interesting...

Effect of Subtherapeutic Administration of Antibiotics on the Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteria in Feedlot Cattlehttp://aem.asm.org/math/link/large/dtri.gif

So they fed a group of 300 cattle, a little bit of antibiotic for over 300 days and a third of them started pooping antibiotic resistant bugs. That's not surprising, I think the same thing is happening to kids of germaphobic mothers.

Apparently the healthiest diet of any Brit in the 20th century was during rationing. Diets were high in vegetables and grains and low in meat and fat. They were probably lower on fruit than would be considered ideal these days (I've heard first hand stories from evacuee relatives about them gorging themselves on stolen fruit until they were sick). No of course I'm not suggesting a return to rationing. But to posit that expensive (or unavailable) meat means malnutrition is way off beam.
Brits too. It's one of the few bad habits I'm not guilty of. My diet is far from healthy unless I am making a deliberate effort, but my meat consumption has always been low/ occasional. Says the woman eating Lamb Rogan Josh tonight :yum:

No, that's not what it says.

What do you think it says?

*Steers were initially fed a barley silage-based diet, followed by transition to a barley grain-based diet.

*Despite not being administered antibiotics prior to arrival at the feedlot, the prevalences of steers shedding TET- and ampicillin (AMP)-resistant E. coli were >40 and <30%, respectively.

*Irrespective of treatment, the prevalence of steers shedding TET-resistant E. coli was higher in animals fed grain-based compared to silage-based diets.

*All steers shed TET-resistant E. coli at least once during the experiment. ("All" includes control group ie. no antibiotics)

*The findings of the present study indicated that subtherapeutic administration of tetracycline in combination with sulfamethazine increased the prevalence of tetracycline- and AMP-resistant E. coli in cattle.
However, resistance to antibiotics may be related to additional environmental factors such as diet.

Okay, so keep in mind that what I am about to say is anecdotal, so if you don't like anecdotes, just ignore it.

I was raised in a beef industry family and they have been for almost 50 years. My father and by brother (now) are both heavily involved in the world of livestock nutrition and I also work in this field. I process all the orders for our company and I know what we sell to feedlots in Nebraska, Colorado and South Dakota. Not that I am the end all be all of livestock nutrition knowledge, but that is where my background lies.

When we sell antibiotic (Called Chlortetracycline) it is usually for calves and only if they are sick. It is expensive and not often fed to "fat cattle." The feedlots we sell to don't put it in the feed. It just doesn't make sense. For one thing, it is cost prohibitive. For another thing, there is something called Rumensin and other like products that are not anti-biotics, but are approved by the FDA to use as a cattle production enhancement. These work better than anti-biotics and don't get into the meat. It just don't behoove the ranchers and feedlot owners to produce "anti-biotic laden" beef. Their livelihood depends on healthy cattle.

Most feedlots that we deal with will start a calf on 90% ruffage and 10% grain. That ratio eventually becomes the opposite...10% ruffage to 90% grain. Take from that what you will. In my experience and that of my family, feedlot owners and ranchers don't want their cattle to get "torn up guts" because it costs them more to treat them than it is worth.

Oh, and the "lean" ground beef you buy in the store around here usually comes from Mexico (long and short horn cattle) and/or dairy cows. But that is a whole other topic.

I don't know much about chickens and what they get. I prefer to raise my own. :)

But chose to ignore... Like I said, they fed them low level drugs.
So what, it's the wholesale feeding of drugs that causes drug resistant bugs to develop.
That's no surprise, ever see cows eat? half of what they eat has been dropped by one or more other animals.
That's what I said.
And hell may freeze over. How the fuck can they tell, when they fed all the cattle the same diet. When they were fed the barley-grain they shed more? Well, they had been eating low level drugs for a longer time...duh.

The why did so many steer who had not been given abx show up to the feedlot already carrying abx-resistant bugs? All the steer developed them at some point after the drugs - the third you mentioned arrived with them.

How much longer?

However long they were fed with drugged barley-silage, before the drugged barley-grain.

As a side note, I am slow cooking a Beef Roast on the charcoal grill, we are at hour 3.