• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hormones &/Or Antibiotics in beef

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Didn't we have some discussion of possible hormone increases in beef due to implanting growth stimulants a while back?

Found an old clipping, unfortunately with no date or name of the paper it is from, but carries some information from the early days of Beef Checkoff work to end some of the myths harming beef consumption.

I happen to believe work such as this, from the research giving the proof to the dissemination of the accurate information to the public, ultimately has an effect even today on beef consumption.

***************

Myth: The use of antibiotics and hormone growth implants in livestock production is causing hazardous residues in beef and contributing to the development of health problems in humans.

Fact: No residues from feeding antibiotics are found in beef, and there is no valid scientific evidence that antibiotic use in cattle causes illness resulting from the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Authorities agree that use of hormone impts results in the efficnt production of beef that is safe.

Hormones are naturally present in infinitesimal amounts in all meat, whether from implanted animals or not. The amount of estrogen in plant-source foods iarger than in meat. The human body produces hormones in quantities much greater than would ever be consumed by eating beef or other foods. Hormones in beef from implanted steers have no physiological significance for humans whatsoever. The strogen level in a 3-oz. serving f beef from an implantesteer is 1.85 nanograms (a nanogram is a billionth of a gram): the level in the same size portion of beef from a non-implanted steer is 1.3 nanograms. By comparison, a non-pregnant woman produces 480,000 nanograms of estrogen daily.

Hormone implants also increase the efficiency of beef production, thus alleviating energy, feed usage and environmental impacts, and improve overall quality and healthfulness of beef by reducing the amount of fat.

****************

I know this material is several years old, but believe the information is currently correct and of interest when considering this issue, but will accept correction from anyone with better or more current facts.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Myth: The use of antibiotics and hormone growth implants in livestock production is causing hazardous residues in beef and contributing to the development of health problems in humans.

Fact: No residues from feeding antibiotics are found in beef, and there is no valid scientific evidence that antibiotic use in cattle causes illness resulting from the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.


MRJ


MRJ-- This must be old-old info or there are newly developed tests out there......Several cattle buyers I know quite well have been telling me about getting stuck with buying cattle that are "certified" no hormones or no antibiotics....They have been paying the premium price, but when slaughtered these cattle are testing with too high of residuals- that tests are showing they were given either antibiotics or steroids within a certain period....One buyer said they even have it down to where they can almost judge the amount and time period when last exposed...

They are still taking the "producer certified" certificates- but like they told me- Once burned by a producer and it won't happen again....Some of these old boys have a memory that would put most computers to shame....
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
OT, it's a myth, these buyers are taking advantage of the producer. The might just not like the quality of cattle he is producing!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
OT, it's a myth, these buyers are taking advantage of the producer. The might just not like the quality of cattle he is producing!

Murgen--How many cull bulls you been selling for $90 at 2200lbs if they have a "certificate" with them? :???: :? ....Last couple of years that has been the big thing- $5-10 premium- for all natural outfits like Lauras Lean, etc-- but they have been doing testing.....Seems this is something USDA is actually enforcing.....
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
I think there's been lots of bulls selling up here for a little over $90, but not much more for the culls.

Actually had word today that a neighbor sold 1560 lb steers for $1.04, bought in Dec. at 751lbs @ $1.17. Going into a natural program. No testing though!
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MJR, any good this material did was undone many times over by the closing remarks...

"improve overall quality and healthfulness of beef by reducing the amount of fat."

The idea that animal fats are harmful to the human body has become ingrained in consumers minds to the point that when they think of 'bad fats', they think beef. Ditto that for the medical profession.

Here is the question that needs to be answered...

Animals fats have been part of the human diet since the beginning of time, why did they become harmful to the human body beginning in the early 1900's?

My personal opinion of synthetic hormones is that they help the genetically deficient cattle and the more they impact a herd....well?!?!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
OT, I said it was an OLD clipping. Not sure how old. Any guesses from anyone?

It should be considered a good thing if USDA or some company independent of the buyer is testing and enforcing the information on residues, IMO.

RobertMac, we had to do the research to prove that animal fat, particularly beef fat is good for a person. That research already has achieved some goals, and if it goes as expected, there are very exciting things ahead for beef nutrient content.

You may quibble that it is taking too long, or should have been "known" from the start, but when there are competing protein producers out there working against us, it takes longer to gain the proof necessary for our industry to prevail on these health/nutrient issues.

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ: "You may quibble that it is taking too long, or should have been "known" from the start, but when there are competing protein producers out there working against us, it takes longer to gain the proof necessary for our industry to prevail on these health/nutrient issues."

And who are those 'competing protein producers out there working against us'...they are Tyson, Cargill, ConAgra, Smithfield...and don't try to tell me that you are talking about the lowly producer. Pork and poultry are top-down vertically integrated and these companies own and/or regulate the product through out the production, processing, and distribution system. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY PACKER CONCENTRATION IS BAD FOR BEEF PRODUCERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Demonized beef fat is the number one issue concerning beef demand and what really frustrates me is the lack interest in this by cattle producers as shown by the lack of comments every time I bring this issue up. Shows just how little cattle producers understand about consumer concerns with our product.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
RobertMac said:
MRJ: "You may quibble that it is taking too long, or should have been "known" from the start, but when there are competing protein producers out there working against us, it takes longer to gain the proof necessary for our industry to prevail on these health/nutrient issues."

And who are those 'competing protein producers out there working against us'...they are Tyson, Cargill, ConAgra, Smithfield...and don't try to tell me that you are talking about the lowly producer. Pork and poultry are top-down vertically integrated and these companies own and/or regulate the product through out the production, processing, and distribution system. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY PACKER CONCENTRATION IS BAD FOR BEEF PRODUCERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Demonized beef fat is the number one issue concerning beef demand and what really frustrates me is the lack interest in this by cattle producers as shown by the lack of comments every time I bring this issue up. Shows just how little cattle producers understand about consumer concerns with our product.

The "Beef Quality Audit" showed that producers are "ADDING" fat to cattle at an alarming rate with some of the "Black" genetics introduced in the last few years.
Just another example of producers not knowing what they are producing and obviously not caring.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike, no, I wasn't talking about competing meat producers at all. What about the "competition" I had in mind and should have enumerated: Soy producers trying to substitute soy proteins for beef claiming it is "more healthful"? Same for yogurt manufacturers and also "do-gooders" like Carol Tucker Forman promoting yogurt as better for kids than beef, even soy "enriched" beef? What about government agencies being sold the bill of goods that "oils" are more healthful than animal fats? Pillsbury was, if not the first, one of them to do that if I recall correctly. What about fish and poultry, and even pork being promoted as being better for health than "red meats"? Has that been promoted by "evil packers"? Or was it more accurately done by government and medical people with the agenda of increasing budgets for their new "research" projects?

While you seem to love to hate the packer "concentration", what are your suggestions for alternatives? Do you give them no credit for being part of the system that has made our beef production the envy of the world? That isn't to say things can't be improved, but IMO, trying to destroy that system is not the way to improve it!

Re. fat in beef, what did packers have to do with "demonizing" it? Your claim of producer disinterest doesn't hold up to the fact that the producers running the Beef Checkoff have worked dilligently to research the facts about beef fat.

I would be particularly interested in specifics of your claim that the BQA showed producers are adding fat to cattle via "black" genetics. Or is it your "breed" bias showing a bit? Are you against marbling in beef? Outside fat is routinely trimmed to miniscule amounts, is it not? What about beef fat needed for manufacturing, tires for instance, as well as other by-product uses?

MRJ
 

PPRM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Oregon
Mike,

What are we getting paid for????? Often it is a premium for Marbling and a discount for "bark" (extrior fat). So it depends where the fat is. A reason I like the right Charlais crossed with the right Angus cattle,

I go by where the rubber meets the road, the grid,

PPRM
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Mike said:
Google it! It's called "Gone Flabby" in BEEF magazine.

Thanks. Think I remember that story, but didn't have time to read it. Hopefully I will catch up a bit now that cattle are mostly where they belong which means fewer days spent cooking for cowboys for me.....plus the carpenters are "on loan" to someone else for a while. Just have three pre and young teen grand daughters to keep up with and the youngest grandson and his partner qualified for team roping at state high school rodeo which we hope to go to this afternoon. Being grandparents is taking priority for a day or three!

On the other hand, isn't fat content of beef something which the consumer should decide, at least in part? They sure seem to like/buy into the Angus hype! My preference for Scottish Highlander or Longhorn beef isn't being met though.......must not be enough of us yet!

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ, please don't beat-up on Mike for my post, but I'll let him have the last paragraph.

MRJ: "...no, I wasn't talking about competing meat producers at all. What about the "competition" I had in mind and should have enumerated: Soy producers trying to substitute soy proteins for beef claiming it is "more healthful"? Same for yogurt manufacturers and also "do-gooders" like Carol Tucker Forman promoting yogurt as better for kids than beef, even soy "enriched" beef? "

I guess I should have thrown in ADM...by the way, how much market share have we lost to soy and yogurt?

MRJ: "What about government agencies being sold the bill of goods that "oils" are more healthful than animal fats?"

I think that's called lobbying...where was the lobbying by the processors selling beef tallow? I agree with you 100%...the increased use of "oils" parallels the increase in health problems.

MRJ: "What about fish and poultry, and even pork being promoted as being better for health than "red meats"? Has that been promoted by "evil packers"?"

Tyson certainly took advantage and benefited from this propaganda. Maybe if IBP had of used more of their resources to combat this miss information, they wouldn't have been bought out by Tyson.

It must be something about the northern climate that makes you people use words like hate, blame, and whine to label the people you disagree with. I don't hate the packers, but I don't like the concentration in the protein industry or any other industries because it makes it exponentially harder for new competition to enter and survive in the market place. I am pro small business and in case you don't realize it, we are all small business. I want to see more independent beef only processors that source, sell AND PROMOTE USA beef. The same for Canada because that is the only true solution for Canadian producers. Multi-national packers don't care where they source their beef if it helps them have a positive margin...that's why they are apposed to COOL. There will always be a place in the market for commodity processors, but they shouldn't be the ONLY market. If the cattleman is going to gain more of the consumer's dollar, he has to make sure his cattle are sought after and promoted and we can only do that with independent processors and true branded programs. NCBA sat back and watched while the ability of the producer to control his own destiny was bought up and shut down by a few large packers. Canada's problem today isn't R-CALF...it's the fact that their industry was built on one market, the USA, and that market is controlled by two packers, Tyson and Cargill. They don't have any independent processors to help them do what they need to do...BSE test and source other markets. I wish them luck and hope we will learn from their situation.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
PPRM said:
Mike,

What are we getting paid for????? Often it is a premium for Marbling and a discount for "bark" (extrior fat). So it depends where the fat is. A reason I like the right Charlais crossed with the right Angus cattle,

I go by where the rubber meets the road, the grid,

PPRM
You got it Pat! But the correlation between marbling and "bark" genetics is not much. Big ribeyes, low backfat, with marbling will put the rubber on the raod. More cattlemen should feed cattle and sell on the grid to find out where the "road" is.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Robertmac, I'll take your comments one further. Scientists are just now finding out that it's the "Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils" that are killing people by clogging arteries.
Not cholesteral. (sp)
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
"...just finding out now..." It's been known for sometime, we just had to wait on NCBA's politically correct study to suggest to the guvment and docs that they were duped by the oil seed industry. All the studies used to condemn beef didn't exclude "Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils", a foreign substance to our bodies. The scary part...go to the store and start looking at packaged foods and put one of each that DOESN'T contain some type of hydrogenated oil...you'll come out almost empty handed.
Again, the increase of processed foods in our diet parallels the increase in health problems.
 

Latest posts

Top