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.
YOU made the claim that corn-fed beef is the lowest and least efficient conversion.
It is YOUR responsibility to prove your claim. It is not my responsibility to prove it false.
I could just as well claim that you weigh 400 lbs. But if I make such an absurd claim, it would be MY responsibility to prove it. I could also claim that you are a pedophile. But that too would be my responsibility to claim - not your responsibility to claim false.
OOH nasty ,another city data cop out-turning nasty and shallowly veiled personal insults.Bet you are a male too. Very common on CD.
These are cattle that eat a mixture of corn and roughage.
These are cattle that eat "the old fashioned way."
Take your pick. I've already made my choice.
Not sure what the point of the picture was, I grew up in cattle country.
My point was that all studies show that:
"Grass-fed beef refers to beef from cattle that
have been fed only grasses. These cattle are not
held in a feedlot and fed grain like conventional
beef cattle. Grass-fed beef is known to have certain
health benefits when consumed. Grass-fed beef is 1)
lower in fat and calories than conventional beef, 2)
has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which have
been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers and
brain disorders, and 3) is fed only grass, so there
are no concerns about mad cow disease."
Well, in my opinion, grass-fed is far superior to corn-fed as far as flavor is concerned. (Flavor? Remember that?) Takes a hair more skill in cooking (you can't just throw it on and have it be tender, you have to pay attention to what you're doing), but sure does taste better!
That being said, mad cow? Once, years ago, when NAIS was in its infancy and they were trying to sell it to us on the basis of fear of mad cow, being me, I decided to find out how many people died annually of mad cow disease. Tried to eliminate all of the incredibly biased sources on BOTH sides of the issue (and there are a million of them out there, it seems) and stick to the agencies that are charged with keeping track of such things around the world,and those all came up with about the same figure.
Which, at that time, was 150 deaths. Not annually, not in the United States, but ever, worldwide, in the at that time 20 years or so since the discovery of the disease.
150 deaths, total, EVER, that were confirmed to be from eating contaminated meat. (There are other causes, including genetic, of course, but those are not related to beef.)
Think maybe it's possible that the risk has been just a bit over-stated for reasons having nothing to do with health?
And I only saw one photo, by the way. (The cows in it looked remarkably similar to my grass-fed ones.) What happened to the other one?
I'm waiting for Susan42 to explain how dairy farmers,who make a living out of selling milk, can -- pump their cows full of antbiotics---and stay in business.
Dumping milk that fails an antibiotic test will assure you go broke quick.
I imagine she will refuse to defend her lie just like she remained quiet on a different thread when I questioned her lie.
Well, in my opinion, grass-fed is far superior to corn-fed as far as flavor is concerned. (Flavor? Remember that?) Takes a hair more skill in cooking (you can't just throw it on and have it be tender, you have to pay attention to what you're doing), but sure does taste better!
That being said, mad cow? Once, years ago, when NAIS was in its infancy and they were trying to sell it to us on the basis of fear of mad cow, being me, I decided to find out how many people died annually of mad cow disease. Tried to eliminate all of the incredibly biased sources on BOTH sides of the issue (and there are a million of them out there, it seems) and stick to the agencies that are charged with keeping track of such things around the world,and those all came up with about the same figure.
Which, at that time, was 150 deaths. Not annually, not in the United States, but ever, worldwide, in the at that time 20 years or so since the discovery of the disease.
150 deaths, total, EVER, that were confirmed to be from eating contaminated meat. (There are other causes, including genetic, of course, but those are not related to beef.)
Think maybe it's possible that the risk has been just a bit over-stated for reasons having nothing to do with health?
And I only saw one photo, by the way. (The cows in it looked remarkably similar to my grass-fed ones.) What happened to the other one?
NAIS is just not on account of mad cow disease and not just about people getting sick.
NAIS is about being able to track an animal immediately to stop the markets from crashing and putting producers out of business.
Sites like this one------green living--- would have a "field day " bashing the livestock industry and trying their hardest to spread fear so people wouldn't buy meat .
Which, at that time, was 150 deaths. Not annually, not in the United States, but ever, worldwide, in the at that time 20 years or so since the discovery of the disease.
150 deaths, total, EVER, that were confirmed to be from eating contaminated meat. (There are other causes, including genetic, of course, but those are not related to beef.)
But realize that's probably because people actually took steps to avoid the spread. If people didn't do anything, obviously it would be more people.
Orange yolks contain more carotene. Fact. More Vitamin A.
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.