U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2010, 08:00 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,203,404 times
Reputation: 958

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Actually that's not true. Cattle don't get e coli from eating corn, any more than they get it from eating grass.

The best way to raise cattle is with a good balance of grain and roughage. Yes, they can grow and do okay on an exclusive diet of one or the other, but a balanced mix is best.
E. Coli is not in the beef(other than ground beef), it gets on the beef from the processing...If the digestive tact's contents (E.Coli)comes into contact with the meat, then the meat is contaminated...

If E. Coli and other germs are present on the exterior of a steak, cooking the steak's exterior well will kill all germs.(germs=bactria, viruses, patogens, bugs)

If germs are present on the meat and it is ground, then formed into a patty or meatball...ect, then the germs are inside...and if not properly cooked the germs may be in an amout that may cause distress.

Grass fed doesnt mean chemical free...many producers protect their heards with giving stock anti biotics and de-wormers to keep the heard healthy. (thrush and hoof and mouth)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,105,592 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
By "eating grain", do you mean, for example, when grazing on mature oats they get the seed head as well as the rest?
I mean that grain has been eaten by cattle for as long as there have been cattle.


I'm always a little surprised by how ignorant most people are regarding basic agriculture and farming practices (you obviously aren't ignorant of any of it). For instance, when actual farmers refer to "corn fed beef" they are not indicating that corn is the only thing the cattle eat. As far as I know, nobody feeds cattle only corn. Corn is part of what the cattle are fed - it is an augmentation to the roughage.

My good old dad - still going strong on the farm at the age of 74 - finishes out his cattle in an open lot. They're on full-feed alfalfa hay and corn. They eat what they want, when they want. They're not force-fed anything. They're not pumped full of hormones, antibioitics, or any of the other stuff city people like to make up and yell about.

You won't find better beef anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,105,592 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
E. Coli is not in the beef(other than ground beef), it gets on the beef from the processing...If the digestive tact's contents (E.Coli)comes into contact with the meat, then the meat is contaminated...

If E. Coli and other germs are present on the exterior of a steak, cooking the steak's exterior well will kill all germs.(germs=bactria, viruses, patogens, bugs)

If germs are present on the meat and it is ground, then formed into a patty or meatball...ect, then the germs are inside...and if not properly cooked the germs may be in an amout that may cause distress.

Grass fed doesnt mean chemical free...many producers protect their heards with giving stock anti biotics and de-wormers to keep the heard healthy. (thrush and hoof and mouth)
Right. We learned a hundred-times more about E.Coli than we ever wanted to, when our oldest son got E.Coli Poisoning.

As with most things, the myths about E.Coli are far more pervasive than the truth - and for some reason people seem drawn to the myths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2010, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,388 posts, read 37,697,685 times
Reputation: 22529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Right. We learned a hundred-times more about E.Coli than we ever wanted to, when our oldest son got E.Coli Poisoning.

As with most things, the myths about E.Coli are far more pervasive than the truth - and for some reason people seem drawn to the myths.
And that can be abused.

A few years back when "mad cow" was being used as a boogeyman to get us to give up some of our civil rights to "protect" ourselves from the disease, I got curious, and decided that I'd like to know how many people annually, in the U.S., died from mad cow. So, google being my friend, I started researching and avoided extremist sites on either side as much as possible, sticking with places like the CDC and similar places that are charged with keeping track of the actual numbers.

The number that I came up with, at that time, was 150. Not in the U.S., but worldwide. Not annually, but ever - in the then 20 years since it had been discovered, 150 people had died worldwide from confirmed "mad cow" that they had acquired from eating tainted animal products.

Sort of put things into perspective - both in the actual danger versus the danger of giving up those civil rights, and the actual danger of believing anything scary that is told to us without examining it and how very, very, very inclined people are to want to believe the worst and scariest story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2010, 12:34 PM
 
9,807 posts, read 13,411,082 times
Reputation: 8158
It matters not whether a scare is real or just a preconcieved notion.

Both will cause the market price to tumble.

Examples are the Alor scare in apples and that scare about bacon years back.

You can never recover the money lost from a scare to a food product whether that scare was justified or not.

The real problem comes in our foreign markets as they will keep the blockade on the US long after the scare is over in the US.

The loss of export markets drives the price for producers down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2010, 01:15 PM
 
501 posts, read 1,106,084 times
Reputation: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
It's not just about taste; it's also a potential question of health.
You can lessen the health risks, but you can't eliminate them. As for meat and fowl, you can still have an unhealthy result from grass fed beef, if the person who processes your meat isn't careful when they grind your burger. You can grind your own, but surface contaminants could still get into your own grind potentially.

As for going vegetarian - some say there are potential risks from GM seed or from various contaminants added when the produce is harvested and processed.

I personally don't eat much that I don't produce myself, but in so far as I rely on others (the butcher who cuts/wraps, whoever harvests/processes the vegetables/fruits that I can't grown here in my garden), I still face a "potential" health risk. I tell myself I have minimized this risk as much as possible, but there is no way to positively eliminate the potential question of health risks so long as we eat.

I have very long lived relatives who ate nothing but a steady diet of corn fed beef into their late 90s, straight from the feedlot. I have other relatives who tried to be as careful as possible with what they ate, and died far younger. It isn't clear cut at all.

I can make a case either way, so I leave health concerns to others to decide for themselves. OTOH, it is fairly straight forward what people think tastes good to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2010, 05:11 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,105,592 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
And that can be abused.

A few years back when "mad cow" was being used as a boogeyman to get us to give up some of our civil rights to "protect" ourselves from the disease, I got curious, and decided that I'd like to know how many people annually, in the U.S., died from mad cow. So, google being my friend, I started researching and avoided extremist sites on either side as much as possible, sticking with places like the CDC and similar places that are charged with keeping track of the actual numbers.

The number that I came up with, at that time, was 150. Not in the U.S., but worldwide. Not annually, but ever - in the then 20 years since it had been discovered, 150 people had died worldwide from confirmed "mad cow" that they had acquired from eating tainted animal products.

Sort of put things into perspective - both in the actual danger versus the danger of giving up those civil rights, and the actual danger of believing anything scary that is told to us without examining it and how very, very, very inclined people are to want to believe the worst and scariest story.
Excellent points!

I would have thought the number was higher. And if we had really listened to our attention-whoring media, you'd be led to believe that there were millions dying every month.

Swine Flu - H1N1 - anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Omaha
50 posts, read 35,796 times
Reputation: 14
I think a lot of farmers would feed corn to their cattle CONSTANTLY if they could afford to. Bigger is better right?

Antibiotics, Growth Hormones, and Corn.

The holy trinity of corporate cattle.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2010, 09:07 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,105,592 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by MATTDAMON View Post
I think a lot of farmers would feed corn to their cattle CONSTANTLY if they could afford to. Bigger is better right?

Antibiotics, Growth Hormones, and Corn.

The holy trinity of corporate cattle.
I'm always a little amazed when I hear city people talking about antibiotics & growth hormones in cattle.

Why do we give our kids Penicillin pills when they're sick, but somehow think it's toxic when farmers give cattle a shot of Penicillin when they're sick? Some of the "only organic foods!" folks will be the first to rush their kids off to the Urgent Care Clinic at the first sight of a sniffle.


And the "growth hormones"? Interestingly enough, it's bovine somatotropin, and is naturally produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. It has been utilized in dairy cattle since the 1930s. It has only been since the mid-1990s that Polisac - a synthetically produced form of the hormone - has been available.

According to USDA surveys, only about 17% of all dairy cattle in the US are given Polisac. Essentially what it does is keeps them lactating for longer periods of time, after calving.

Oddly enough, there has not been one single instance that links these growth hormones to any human health issue. There has been a lot of "it might" or "it could", but there is simply no links of any kind.


I'm sure that marmac - being (I think) in the dairy business - could shed more light on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2010, 09:12 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,269,339 times
Reputation: 22342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I'm always a little amazed when I hear city people talking about antibiotics & growth hormones in cattle.

Why do we give our kids Penicillin pills when they're sick, but somehow think it's toxic when farmers give cattle a shot of Penicillin when they're sick? Some of the "only organic foods!" folks will be the first to rush their kids off to the Urgent Care Clinic at the first sight of a sniffle.


And the "growth hormones"? Interestingly enough, it's bovine somatotropin, and is naturally produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. It has been utilized in dairy cattle since the 1930s. It has only been since the mid-1990s that Polisac - a synthetically produced form of the hormone - has been available.

According to USDA surveys, only about 17% of all dairy cattle in the US are given Polisac. Essentially what it does is keeps them lactating for longer periods of time, after calving.

Oddly enough, there has not been one single instance that links these growth hormones to any human health issue. There has been a lot of "it might" or "it could", but there is simply no links of any kind.


I'm sure that marmac - being (I think) in the dairy business - could shed more light on this.
All you have to do is read one chapter of "The Omivore's Dilemma" and you will get a clear picture of commercial beef production. You don't have to buy it, go to the library and check it out. It would put any sane person off beef forever.

20yrsinBranson

Last edited by 20yrsinBranson; 01-08-2010 at 09:13 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top