Beef. . . Its What's For Dinner!
:p:
Study shows ground beef from grain-fed cattle healthier than grass-fed
By: Blair Fannin, 979-845-2259
Contact(s): Dr. Stephen Smith, 979-845-3935, [email]sbsmith@tamu.edu[/email]
COLLEGE STATION – Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study.
Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid.
MORE HERE What about all the antibiotics the cows need because the corn tears up their guts?
What about all the antibiotics the cows need because the corn tears up their guts?
Propaganda, [hooey]cattle may get antibiotics if they have an injury or if they get pneumonia. I have been in beef for 30 years and never heard of giving antibiotics for indigestion.
Most of the time antibiotics are used on dairy cattle for mastitis and that may be in your cheaper ground beef. We rarely use antibiotics on yearlings and never on slaughter ready cattle.
How about the cows at feedlots?
edit: Cattle, sorry, beefs, whatever...
You give cattle antibiotics for the same reason a human would need an antibiotic. Only if they have an injury or pneumonia. Even at feed lots they are not given routinely or as a prophylactic. That is PETA and HSUS's propaganda "lets scare the public away from beef."
Pigs are fed in confinement they get antibiotics in their feed. Maybe this is where that idea comes from.
I don't think the Brits give ATB to their pigs. And if you have ever seen a pig farm in the UK it is like the difference between a slop house (US) and a hospital operating room (UK)
USDA says
Approximately 25% of small feedlot cattle operations and 70% of large feedlot operations used
antibiotics in the feed. Similarly, approximately 31% of cattle on small feedlot operations and
57% of cattle on large feedlot operations received antibiotics via feed.
summary on pg 16
Cattle on antibiotics must be held from slaughter a certain number of days depending on the antibiotic so it will clear the system. Don't eat kidneys or brains. :)
Cattle are not given antibiotics to help them consume grain. Antibiotics can be in the feed of just started animals, steers and heifers that are 5-6 months old. They are usually bought from commercial breeders and moved to the feedlot which is the human equivalent of kids being exposed to all kinds of things at school.They do not make it to your table until they are 20-24 months old.. That article is from 2007 things change fast in the food industry. We are not a feedlot operation
Not all feedlots use antibiotic feed and again most likely never after the cattle are a year old.
Nirvana... I absolutely believe that your ranch is run with compassion both for the animals and the consumers you are delivering an end product to.
But the fact that you run a clean business doesn't mean that everyone, or even the majority, do. There was a conversation awhile back about "downer" cows, which I remembered well because at the time I'd never even heard of such a thing. You told us that people aren't allowed to eat downer cows, so therefore we don't. Except I've seen video of feedlot owners using a cattle prod to force downer cows to their feet so that they can for an instant qualify as standing, and be slaughtered. It happens. No one is indicting you personally, far from it--but there are majorly corrupt players in your industry.
"Indicting" is a very strange word, don't you think?
Except I've seen video of feedlot owners using a cattle prod to force downer cows to their feet so that they can for an instant qualify as standing, and be slaughtered. It happens. No one is indicting you personally, far from it--but there are majorly corrupt players in your industry.
This is one instance and it is illegal. What you are talking about is a processor not a feedlot operator. They are two different business and any business can be run by assholes. Those are more likely to be the cows in fast food restaurants not in your grocery store. Most grocers sell choice or select and no way an old or sick cow would ever grade select or choice.
There is always a way to buy beef directly from the producer if you buy a side of beef. Then it goes to a local small processor to be butchered. Saying that video represents the majority of the beef industry is like saying that Saddam Hussein represents the human race.
Old and sick cows do not come from feedlots they are not fed in feedlots, they are the cast offs of the dairy industry. They are sold at livestock auctions and bought by companies that sell to pet food manufacturers, or they are bought to make hamburger for the fast food industry. Only steers and heifers that mature at 20-24 months old are fed in feedlots they are sold directly to the processor or they are sold to beef buyers directly or through auction.
I had a great steak last night. I thank the beef industry.
Clone thread:
Beer...It's What's for Dinner!
Its not a clone thread if its in the same thread!:eyebrow::rolleyes:
;)
That's the lazy man's clone.
It's very common for grass fed beef to be 'topped off' either in a feed lot or the holding yards for a couple of weeks before being sent to slaughter.
Antibiotics are used in Australia in exactly the way Nirvana suggests it's used at her farm. In the case of illness which is unable to be treated without drugs. There is a certain level of residue allowable in the beef that is sent to market but obviously, not every beast has been sick, so the actual proportion of beef with a residual drug level compared to that with none is negligable. In simple terms, it's likely that we've all eaten meat which has a residue however, it wouldn't constitute anywhere near being a part of every meal or even every meal eaten where beef is involved.
PAMTA
On March 17, 2009, Rep. Slaughter introduced the "Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act" (PAMTA) in the House of Representatives. This critical legislation is designed to ensure that we preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for the treatment of human diseases.
Antibiotics are an indispensable part of modern medicine, protecting all of us from deadly infections. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the widespread practice of using antibiotics to promote livestock growth and compensate for unsanitary, crowded conditions has led to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and other germs, rendering many of our most powerful drugs ineffective. PAMTA will limit the use of antibiotics on our livestock to ensure that we are not inadvertently creating antibiotic- resistant diseases that we can't fight with modern medicine.
According to estimates by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 50 million pounds of antibiotics - nearly 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. - have been used in food animals for purposes other than treating disease since PAMTA was last introduced two years ago.
I have a beef horror story to tell. Far western Colorado was once the site of a lot of uranium production. When they had gotten all the ore they could, the big mining companies pulled out leaving behind radioactive tailings and just a big nasty mess in general. The feds stepped in to do what cleaning up they could. Everywhere there are settling ponds that are fenced off with big warning signs. Ranchers still graze their cattle in these areas. One day I was driving around there just taking in the general distruction. I came across about 10 cattle who had trampled the fence down around around one of these settling ponds. They were drinking away, obviously not having read the sign. It put me off beef for months!
Beef - its what glows in the dark!
That's why we should have Universal Reading programs on all cattle ranches.
Gross misstatement hyperbole. :rolleyes:
nearly 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. - have been used in food animals for purposes other than treating disease
They were drinking away, obviously not having read the sign. It put me off beef for months!
I just love scare tactic fairy tales! :stickpoke I can't wait for the other stories. Where is my popcorn ;)
Union of Concerned Scientists wtf are these people? I am with the Union of concerned beef eaters LMAO!
Is there proof that using antibiotics in meat animals is the culprit for any disease? Anyone afraid of beef ? Don't eat it but don't use fairy tales to scare others away from a perfectly good and safe protein source. Not all cows are in the food chain. No cows [which are older cattle that have had calves] are in feedlots. Old cows old bulls are made into hamburger, luncheon meat or hotdogs. These cattle do not grade choice or even select.
Most of the antibiotics given are given to dairy cows for mastitis after they calve. Their milk is not suitable for human consumption but it is fed back to their own and other calves. After they are well they are still milked and then you are drinking that product.
No one really cares what other people eat unless they don't want them to eat it or they want to explain whatever physically ails them. All the beef in this country is federally inspected before and after its processed. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair if you want to read about what people ate 100 years ago. Antibiotics are expensive most would not want to use them on food animals unless they thought it was necessary.
If you are afraid of antibiotic- resistant diseases tell Drs to stop over prescribing it for humans. Don't think Drs over prescribe drugs? :eyebrow: Then you are not watching television or reading the pamphlets laying all over the Drs office or in the backs of magazines If people want to be healthy they should quit taking the 10 different medications they are prescribed and eat a healthy diet and get off their fat asses and exercise.[please disregard if you have a genetic or acquired disease] [ Acid reflux for example is not a disease it is a symptom of eating the wrong foods or drinking the wrong things.
You can get a drug for acid reflux then to counteract the drug you take for indigestion they give you something else. If you can't sleep you get a drug to sleep and then one to wake up and one to feel better about yourself and one to stop the voices talking in your head probably from using acid reflux pills in the first place.
Tardive Dyskenisia is a common side effect of certain drugs! It may or may not be permanent. That is in a drug ad? WhoTF would take that drug? Lots of people and then they want to blame the food industry for their problems.
I heard this as a child. It describes how so many live nowadays just change the critters to drugs. ;)
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird.
How absurd to swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a cat.
Imagine that, she swallowed a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a dog.
My what a hog, to swallow a dog.
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat.
She swallowed the cat, to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
I guess she'll die.
There was an old lady who swallowed a cow.
I don't know how she swallowed a cow.
She swallowed the cow to catch the dog.
She swallowed the dog, to catch the cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
that wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly
I guess she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse...
She's dead of course!
But don't eat beef it may have antibiotic residue :rolleyes:
Yes doctors should prescribe fewer antibiotics, and people should take them correctly when they actually need them (let me brag about my 10 year old who has NEVER taken an antibiotic, and my 12 year old that's been on them twice, once for a surgical infection, once for an eye infection). Also, Feedlots should not add them to cattle feed and water to promote growth like they currently do but will hopefully soon be unable to..
I'm not on a bunch of prescriptions (birth control only), I'm not overweight, I don't drink cow milk, I eat a mostly plant based diet, and I don't get heartburn. I enjoy steak, just not very often.
Feedlots should not add them to cattle feed and water to promote growth like they currently do but will hopefully soon be unable to..
Jinx you don't buy into the have to have a drug to be normal. I understand why you may have an aversion.
This above is misinformation, antibiotics are not given to promote the growth of an animal. If antibiotics are given at feedlots they are given to combat shipping fever and pneumonia which occurs because young cattle weaned off their mothers are taken by trucks with unrelated animals to an unknown place. Stress is the trigger for most disease.
Becoming too expensive to raise food animals is the goal of the Animal Rights activists. Pretty soon you won't be able to have pets or eat meat. Frightening the public with misinformation and hyperbole is the ARs weapon of choice.
This above is misinformation, antibiotics are not given to promote the growth of an animal.
Why does the USDA think they are?
No Crab leggs are for dinner
I am having panko/almond coated tilapia :P
Oral antibiotics, especially those that act on Gram
positive organisms, became widely used at sub-therapeutic levels for their consistent ability to
improve the growth of livestock (Crawford, 1983; Droumev, 1983). While part of the reason for
this practice is to reduce the risk of disease, it is also accepted that regular intake of oral
antibiotics as feed additives has a direct nutrient sparing effect and reduces the production of
urea, methane, and ammonia in the intestine, among other effects (Visek, 1978; Walton, 1983).
The rationale for the use of antibiotics as growth promoters has been established (Luetzow,
1997). A modulating effect on either the metabolic activity of certain intestinal microorganisms,
or a shift of the balance of the microbial ecosystem, which constitutes an essential
part of mammalian digestion, is the proposed mechanism of action. These effects are observed at
use levels which are far lower than those achieved in therapeutic use. More efficient digestion
during the administration of low levels of anti-microbials decreases the amount of feed necessary
to raise and to fatten domestic animals. The beneficial effects of sub-therapeutic doses of
antibiotics have not decreased since these effects became known in the 1950’s (Frost, 1991).
This is from the USDA link above. I realize it's from 2007, I don't think that's long enough ago to discount it based on age alone. More recent information on the topic points to legislation to end the practice, so obviously that hasn't happened yet...
I think that is more for mono gastric animals rather than ruminants but thanks for the insight.
The USDA link is from 2007, but its cites are from 1983, 1978, 1997 and 1991.
They don't need to study the effects of antibiotics every year do they UT? Once they knew how things worked they went with it, and apparently still do.
Yes, my mistake; I had interpreted
"Oral antibiotics, especially those that act on Gram positive organisms, became widely used at sub-therapeutic levels for their consistent ability to improve the growth of livestock (Crawford, 1983; Droumev, 1983)."
...as meaning that Oral antibiotics became widely used at sub-therapeutic levels (1983)
but I think I interpreted that incorrectly and the (1983) studies mention their consistent ability to improve the growth of livestock.
Carry on. And sorry LJ.
don't let it happen again.
wait.... sorry for wut?
I was skeptical about something jinx posted. I know you hate that.
well, as long as you're not being passive aggressive, we're cool.
what does that smiley indicate?
I thought it was aggressive-passiveness.
well, i'd prefer to discuss an issue like men instead of making vague references and posting smileys to convey how I feel.... but I can't carry out BOTH sides of a discussion... so If you just want to let it drop, I won't press the issue, Tony.
I think that is more for mono gastric animals rather than ruminants but thanks for the insight.
That is correct. Generally used in poultry to help them digest their food easier, which in turn has enabled the body to spend more time growing and less time fighting a particular bacteria which is prevalent in the gut of a chicken.
It's not a big deal. You poked me over the vitamin C and potatoes thing, now I poked you back is all.
You guys keep poking each other and people are going to start to talk.
You guys keep poking each other and people are going to start to talk.
Pix or it never happened! :)
The amount of antibiotics shunted into these animals is sub-therapeutic, which isn't high, at all... The likelihood of much being left in the meat, post-slaughter, isn't that high, anyway... and the levels that MAY be within the meat, are far too low to actively effect us... Those used for non-medicinal purposes, within livestock, are also too low to actively effect any bacteria/diseases within them, which means it's not helping the bacteria/diseases become more resilient to said antibiotics.
I'm happy for my meat to be cheap... I enjoy eating a well balanced, nutritionally-sound diet, and, more than that - a completely natural diet... Vegetarianism and Vegan-ism are not natural, and are not as healthy as a well-balanced meat diet... The more expensive that meat becomes, the more malnourished we'll become, 'cept the richer amongst us, of course... So, until there's some other means of making meat cheap? I'm all for whatever they do, 'cos I refuse to eat a herbivore's diet, when I'm part of an omnivorous species, that requires many things from the meat that we evolved to digest.
(*Note: Anyone who's going to come here, and tell me that vegetarianism or vegan-ism are perfectly acceptable/natural forms of diet... Tell me, when was the last time you heard of someone's gut being unable to process, say, chicken, or beef? My girlfriend knows a lady who's unable to process most plant matter, including most grain... but she's more than able to process meats, still. We can become allergic to all manner of plant, but meat? No, sir. Why, my vegetarian and vegan friends, do you think that is? ... 'cos it's the most natural thing for us to eat. Our brains need it. Our bodies need it. Nothing you say or offer can change that fact... Well, other than pro-vegetarian/vegan biased websites with poorly researched pseudo-facts... but, well, to believe the crap they say, is like saying you believe George W. Bush was an intelligent man who absolutely KNEW that there were W.M.D in Iraq, or that there is a just reason for the war to STILL be going on, even to this day.)
[/EndRant]
Uh, yeah, the supposed mechanics of antibiotic resistance isn't antibiotics in the meat you buy, it's the bacteria on feedlots being constantly exposed to the low-level antibiotics in the feed and water and being spread to the surrounding community via the workers.
Imagine a link to information on pig feedlots and MRSA here.
Also, chickens aren't called cattle in the US.
They are on the
Chicken Ranch.
And this is not the chicken or Pork thread! :)
Hobos: the other red meat.
Hobos: the other red meat.
I'd give human a try. It's meant to taste like heavy-on-the-salt pork, right?
So... bacon?
I am not sure why the USDA thinks it is ok to eat antibiotic laden beef but my water out of the tap is preferable to spring water.
Anything closest to its natural state is best imo but that's just me. I grew up eating our own slaughtered beef, chickens and drank well water. Not even the apples taste real anymore.
(*Note: Anyone who's going to come here, and tell me that vegetarianism or vegan-ism are perfectly acceptable/natural forms of diet... Tell me, when was the last time you heard of someone's gut being unable to process, say, chicken, or beef? My girlfriend knows a lady who's unable to process most plant matter, including most grain... but she's more than able to process meats, still. We can become allergic to all manner of plant, but meat? No, sir.....)
[/EndRant]
Uhm, wrong, very wrong. I had a teach who was allergic to poultry, pork and fish. I have also known (perfectly healthy) vegetarians who would get extremely sick if they ate meat. It is completely likely that there is a number of people who are allergic to all manners of meat. There are plenty of plant-based proteins, which is the main nutrition we get from meat. The vegetarian Indian people I've also known didn't seem to be malnourished.
Although I think it is perfectly fine for meat to be affordable, Americans over-consume meat in major proportions that are not at all healthy for us.
Healthy? That's one of those words whose definitions are so vague as to be meaningless. What does healthy mean to you? I've know of perfectly "healthy" people who have dropped down dead (e.g.
Jim Fixx,
Steve Prefontaine).
I am not sure why the USDA thinks it is ok to eat antibiotic laden beef .
Beef is not antibiotic laden :rolleyes: Hyperbole much?
Healthy? That's one of those words whose definitions are so vague as to be meaningless. What does healthy mean to you? I've know of perfectly "healthy" people who have dropped down dead (e.g. Jim Fixx, Steve Prefontaine).
My bad HLJ. I should have said "they do not have any ailments due to lack of nutrition".
"perferctly healthy" was a stupid choice of words and I regret it.
Beef is not antibiotic laden :rolleyes: Hyperbole much?
The word antibiotics synonymous with beef is not much of a hyperbole.
I bet it doesn't even make the top ten of hyperbole's if even it is a hyperbole at all.
When I hyperbole I'll let YOU know.
Uhm, wrong, very wrong. I had a teach who was allergic to poultry, pork and fish. I have also known (perfectly healthy) vegetarians who would get extremely sick if they ate meat. It is completely likely that there is a number of people who are allergic to all manners of meat. There are plenty of plant-based proteins, which is the main nutrition we get from meat. The vegetarian Indian people I've also known didn't seem to be malnourished.
Although I think it is perfectly fine for meat to be affordable, Americans over-consume meat in major proportions that are not at all healthy for us.
Generally speaking, the only time a person will be allergic to meat (especially two different types of meat) would be environmental, rather than simply being allergic to meat of the animal... Poorly prepared, poorly sourced, or poorly reared animals.
(There are obviously SOME exceptions... there always are.)
Whereas plant matter can simply be indigestible, to many people.
My bad HLJ. I should have said "they do not have any ailments due to lack of nutrition".
"perferctly healthy" was a stupid choice of words and I regret it.
I think your statement was reasonable; I just think the lack of good operational definitions of certain words leads to conflicting interpretations.
The word antibiotics synonymous with beef is not much of a hyperbole.
I bet it doesn't even make the top ten of hyperbole's if even it is a hyperbole at all.
When I hyperbole I'll let YOU know.
I can see you have not even read this thread.
It is better to be thought a fool then to write down your thoughts and remove all doubt :rolleyes:
I can see you have not even read this thread.
It is better to be thought a fool then to write down your thoughts and remove all doubt :rolleyes:
To me beef is antibiotic laden.It sits in the fatty parts of the meat like hamburger and steaks. If it makes me a fool in your eyes, to think so, I don't care. I doubt it was a very far leap for someone with your unwarranted negativity.
Be an ass some more. Have fun.
If there weren't antibiotics in the beef, then THERE WOULD BE BIOTICS IN YOUR BEEF!
Do you want BIOTICS in your beef? I DON'T THINK SO!
[COLOR="Cyan"](as that last line becomes my tweet for the day)[/COLOR]
I'd KILL some biotics for a filet RFN! :yum:
(A friend of mine and I laugh because of another person we know who, when we were talking about how we love a good filet [and really, is there a BAD filet?] and she was all like "yeah, fish is OK I guess." Filet-o-fish, we thought? :lol: I mean, I know there is filetted (sp?) fish just as filleted beef, but I thought most people know what you mean when you mention "a filet."
Maybe you had to be there. ;)
Oh, and WTF...romper room let out early today?
If there weren't antibiotics in the beef, then THERE WOULD BE BIOTICS IN YOUR BEEF!
Do you want BIOTICS in your beef? I DON'T THINK SO!
[COLOR=Cyan](as that last line becomes my tweet for the day)[/COLOR]
No, Ecoli is a nasty Biotic-bug.
It is a conundrum but as a consumer I can choose not eat so much meat.
http://www.circleofresponsibility.com/page/301/reduced-antibiotics.htmWhoa - that was a larger image than I thought - sorry.
lol - My kids weren't afraid of much as children, but THAT!!!!!
If Bionic Cow Santa approached me, as a child, I'd kick him in the balls, and run away, screaming "STRANGER DANGER!"
Hobos: the other red meat.
Only Native American hobos. I'm the other, other white meat.
Only Native American hobos. I'm the other, other white meat.
I laughed.
Then I got hungry. (I didn't realise you were a baby? Props on the typing skills, and the extensive vocabulary.)
(I didn't realise you were a baby?
you should see him carry on when someone takes his binky.
For those concerned with antibiotics in meat, do you use anti-bacterial soap?
I don't choose it at the store, for my home, but I'm sure I use it elsewhere.
If there weren't antibiotics in the beef, then THERE WOULD BE BIOTICS IN YOUR BEEF!
Do you want BIOTICS in your beef? I DON'T THINK SO!
Only because they also spend their time confined in close quarters, knee-deep in their own manure, and they eat a corn-based diet, which destroys their intestines and allows opportunistic infections to flourish. I believe the stat was that when you switch a cow to a grass diet (you know, like they evolved to eat,) 80% of the bad bacteria in their gut dies off within 3 weeks, but I'd have to go back to find the reference for that.
The funny thing is that when they compared the two, the ammonia-soaked (literally) chicken meat from the stacked-cage, windowless feed lot
still had approximately 10 times the bacterial culture than the open-air, free-roaming chicken meat with no antimicrobial treatments at all.
I'd be interested to know where you got that information from Clod.
Initially, an expose'-style documentary on the food processing industry called
Food, Inc. I followed up on some of the references cited in the movie because Mr. Clod wasn't buying some of it, and they confirmed what was presented in the movie. It only specifically applies to factories they examined in the US, so it's possible your food safety laws are entirely different from ours.
Probably not all that much different, but I'll look into it anyway. We don't buy cage chicken meat or eggs in our house as the only way of protesting on a regular basis, but I'm surprised in particular that you've found there are no antibiotics in free range chicken. It's my understanding that they are still used even in free range, but I could be wrong.
Antibiotics specifically are prohibited in all chicken in the US (though not in beef,) but ammonia is just a general antimicrobial, not considered an antibiotic.
Here is an exerpt from the
Antibiotics Policy of the Australian Chicken Meat Industry
Antibiotics are substances that kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria and related microorganisms. They are essential substances in human and animal medicine.
This policy covers the use of antibiotics in two important ways:
�� therapeutic agents (ie applied to treat the clinical symptoms of a bacterial infection)
�� prophylactic agents (ie applied to healthy animals deemed to be at risk of infection to prevent disease occurring).
Importantly, no hormones are used in chicken meat production in Australia. The
industry position regarding the use of antibiotics is that antibiotics should only be used as a last resort to control disease in birds that cannot be managed by other means.
Much the same as the US I'm guessing from discussions I've seen on here.
Now to look into the beef industry and see what they say officially.
Not to burst anyone's balloon here about "free range" or "Cage Free" chickens, but unless you have visited the farm and or personally know the chicken farmers. You might just as well be eating chickens raised in confinement.
In the US, in order to be labelled "free range" the chickens only need to have access to the outdoors. Forget all your bucolic fantasies about the outdoors on an MGM backlot "farm"
You could have a chicken house the size of an airplane hangar packed with chickens, living and dead (they die quite readily) poor ventilation, no lights, and at the far end of the 200 yard vault you have a two foot opening to a concrete slab.
That set up is common and will allow you to label your chicken "cage free" and "free range"
You cannot rely on the US government to protect your interests. Since the USDA got involved in defining terms like "Organic" the terms have become meaningless. Actually, marketing has always been based on bullshit, but now it seems stronger than ever.
Really, you cannot believe anything that is written on packaging, especially if the company doing the writing have more money than the government agencies that are allegedly regulating them.
In other words if you didn't personally see that chicken running around before you ate it then it came from a confinement operation.
When are we going to start growing our meat in vats, without brains?
As soon as we can make it not taste like despair.
The meat tree has been around since 2003, but no one seems to be making a big deal about it.
----
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]
Tree That Give Meat Instead Of Fruit![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Friday May 16, 2003[/SIZE][/FONT]
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/postsWell this is interesting...
Effect of Subtherapeutic Administration of Antibiotics on the Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteria in Feedlot Cattle
Antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli in 300 feedlot steers receiving subtherapeutic levels of antibiotics was investigated through the collection of 3,300 fecal samples over a 314-day period. Antibiotics were selected based on the commonality of use in the industry and included chlortetracycline plus sulfamethazine (TET-SUL), chlortetracycline (TET), virginiamycin, monensin, tylosin, or no antibiotic supplementation (control). 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. Inclusion of TET-SUL in the diet increased the prevalence of steers shedding TET- and AMP-resistant E. coli and the percentage of TET- and AMP-resistant E. coli in the total generic E. coli population. 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. A total of 7,184 isolates were analyzed for MIC of antibiotics. Across antibiotic treatments, 1,009 (13.9%), 7 (0.1%), and 3,413 (47.1%) E. coli isolates were resistant to AMP, gentamicin, or TET, respectively. In addition, 131 (1.8%) and 143 (2.0%) isolates exhibited potential resistance to extended-spectrum β-lactamases, as indicated by either ceftazidime or cefpodoxime resistance. No isolates were resistant to ciprofloxacin. 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.
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.
I'm happy for my meat to be cheap... I enjoy eating a well balanced, nutritionally-sound diet, and, more than that - a completely natural diet... The more expensive that meat becomes, the more malnourished we'll become, 'cept the richer amongst us, of course... So, until there's some other means of making meat cheap? I'm all for whatever they do
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.
Although I think it is perfectly fine for meat to be affordable, Americans over-consume meat in major proportions that are not at all healthy for us.
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:
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.
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. :)
*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.
But chose to ignore...
Antibiotics were selected based on the commonality of use in the industry and included chlortetracycline plus sulfamethazine (TET-SUL), chlortetracycline (TET), virginiamycin, monensin, tylosin, or no antibiotic supplementation
Like I said, they fed them low level drugs.
*Irrespective of treatment, the prevalence of steers shedding TET-resistant E. coli was higher in animals fed grain-based compared to silage-based diets.
So what, it's the wholesale feeding of drugs that causes drug resistant bugs to develop.
*All steers shed TET-resistant E. coli at least once during the experiment. ("All" includes control group ie. no antibiotics)
That's no surprise, ever see cows eat? half of what they eat has been dropped by one or more other animals.
*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.
That's what I said.
However, resistance to antibiotics may be related to additional environmental factors such as diet.
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.
So what, it's the wholesale feeding of drugs that causes drug resistant bugs to develop.
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.
Well, they had been eating low level drugs for a longer time...duh.
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.
