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

In the News and Not good for beef

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Lots of red meat increases mortality risk By CARLA K. JOHNSON, AP Medical Writer - Mon Mar 23, 9:15 PM PDT
CHICAGO - The largest study of its kind finds that older Americans who eat large amounts of red meat and processed meats face a greater risk of death from heart disease and cancer. The federal study of more than half a million men and women bolsters prior evidence of the health risks of diets laden with red meat like hamburger and processed meats like hot dogs, bacon and cold cuts.

A cow grazes in a field outside of Petaluma, California. People who eat more red or processed meat have a higher risk of death from all causes including cancer, while a higher consumption of white meat reduces such risks, a decade-long US study released Monday found.
Calling the increased risk modest, lead author Rashmi Sinha of the National Cancer Institute said the findings support the advice of several health groups to limit red and processed meat intake to decrease cancer risk.

The findings appear in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.

Over 10 years, eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger daily gave men in the study a 22 percent higher risk of dying of cancer and a 27 percent higher risk of dying of heart disease. That's compared to those who ate the least red meat, just 5 ounces per week.

Women who ate large amounts of red meat had a 20 percent higher risk of dying of cancer and a 50 percent higher risk of dying of heart disease than women who ate less.

For processed meats, the increased risks for large quantities were slightly lower overall than for red meat. The researchers compared deaths in the people with the highest intakes to deaths in people with the lowest to calculate the increased risk.

People whose diets contained more white meat like chicken and fish had lower risks of death.

The researchers surveyed more than 545,000 people, ages 50 to 71 years old, on their eating habits, then followed them for 10 years. There were more than 70,000 deaths during that time.

Study subjects were recruited from AARP members, a group that's healthier than other similarly aged Americans. That means the findings may not apply to all groups, Sinha said. The study relied on people's memory of what they ate, which can be faulty.

In the analysis, the researchers took into account other risk factors such as smoking, family history of cancer and high body mass index.

In an accompanying editorial, Barry Popkin, director of the Interdisciplinary Obesity Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote that reducing meat intake would have benefits beyond improved health.

Livestock increase greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming, he wrote, and nations should reevaluate farm subsidies that distort prices and encourage meat-based diets."We've promoted a diet that has added excessively to global warming," Popkin said in an interview.

Successfully shifting away from red meat can be as easy as increasing fruits and vegetables in the diet, said Elisabetta Politi of the Duke Diet and Fitness Center in Durham, N.C.

"I'm not saying everybody should turn into vegetarians," Politi said. "Meat should be a supporting actor on the plate, not the main character."

The National Pork Board and National Cattlemen's Beef Association questioned the findings.

Dietitian Ceci Snyder said in a statement for the pork board that the study "attempts to indict all red meat consumption by looking at extremes in meat consumption, as opposed to what most Americans eat."

Lean meat as part of a balanced diet can prevent chronic disease, along with exercise and avoiding smoking, said Shalene McNeill, dietitian for the beef group.

___




I think it's an unfair article to the beef industry even having beef and processed meat in the same article. This is making news headlines today and it's not good for those of us involved in the beef industry.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sounds like it highlights more reasons to expand grass-finished beef production.

Better for you health and the health of the environment.

I don't mind people eating LESS beef. I just want them eating BETTER beef.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Livestock increase greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming, he wrote, and nations should reevaluate farm subsidies that distort prices and encourage meat-based diets."We've promoted a diet that has added excessively to global warming," Popkin said in an interview. "


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sounds like it highlights more reasons to expand grass-finished beef production.

Better for you health and the health of the environment.

I don't mind people eating LESS beef. I just want them eating BETTER beef.

Or eat more lean cuts of red meat. Is grass fed more environmental friendly and if so why??
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
badaxemoo said:
Sounds like it highlights more reasons to expand grass-finished beef production.

Better for you health and the health of the environment.

I don't mind people eating LESS beef. I just want them eating BETTER beef.

Or eat more lean cuts of red meat. Is grass fed more environmental friendly and if so why??

Healthier for humans because the fat composition is different and it tends to be leaner:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/smart_pasture_operations/greener-pastures.html

Healther for the environment because:

-it requires less fossil fuel to produce, largely because grain production is so energy intensive

-grass finishers use a whole lot fewer antibiotics than the feedlot boys

-pastures sequester a lot more carbon than cornfields

-grasslands aren't as subject to erosion as cornfields

-grass-finished cattle produce less methane

-grass pasture provides more habitat for nesting birds and other species than a monocultural grain field

-leads to less concentration of manure in comparison with a feedlot
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
badaxemoo said:
Sounds like it highlights more reasons to expand grass-finished beef production.

Better for you health and the health of the environment.

I don't mind people eating LESS beef. I just want them eating BETTER beef.

Or eat more lean cuts of red meat. Is grass fed more environmental friendly and if so why??

Healthier for humans because the fat composition is different and it tends to be leaner: Fat is fat on a cow. Just a higher content in grain fed beef depending on the breed
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/smart_pasture_operations/greener-pastures.html

Healther for the environment because:

-it requires less fossil fuel to produce, largely because grain production is so energy intensive (Grazing only...perhaps...growing, cutting, storing and feeding forage when grazing is unavailable requires just as much fuel)
-grass finishers use a whole lot fewer antibiotics than the feedlot boys (Probably)

-pastures sequester a lot more carbon than cornfields (Carbon?? Grass requires maintenace)

-grasslands aren't as subject to erosion as cornfields (Actually farm land is better maintained to avoid erosion than grasslands or pature land)

-grass-finished cattle produce less methane (????? takes longer to reach slaughter size). -

grass pasture provides more habitat for nesting birds and other species than a monocultural grain field (Few birds nest in pastures....they will visit but the same can be said of grain fields) -

leads to less concentration of manure in comparison with a feedlot... (Intake and digestibility determines manure production.... grass is the less digestible than grains and gain by-products)[/b]
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Livestock increase greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming, he wrote, and nations should reevaluate farm subsidies that distort prices and encourage meat-based diets."We've promoted a diet that has added excessively to global warming," Popkin said in an interview.

Sounds like a nut with an agenda.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I find I digest the steak I get from Whole Foods Market much more easily than when I shop for steak at Safeway. Similar cuts but the fat content seems much higher in the non-organic. Not even sure if it's grass fed, if so I believe that would explain it. As we age, we digest heavy animal fats less well, or at least I do. I avoid cream sauces when eating out for example. I suspect that this is the explanation, not beef per se. There's no problem for instance with a daily 4 oz serving of red meat according to the study.

Just what we needed to know, someones digestion quirks. Save it for your garden party
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
badaxemoo said:
Sounds like it highlights more reasons to expand grass-finished beef production.

Better for you health and the health of the environment.

I don't mind people eating LESS beef. I just want them eating BETTER beef.

I find I digest the steak I get from Whole Foods Market much more easily than when I shop for steak at Safeway. Similar cuts but the fat content seems much higher in the non-organic. Not even sure if it's grass fed, if so I believe that would explain it. As we age, we digest heavy animal fats less well, or at least I do. I avoid cream sauces when eating out for example. I suspect that this is the explanation, not beef per se. There's no problem for instance with a daily 4 oz serving of red meat according to the study.

Having a New York strip steak from WFM tonight in fact ... 0.4 lb. ... says hormone free, antibiotics free and "vegetarian diet"! :lol: :lol:

Reader it might actually be a lower grade of mea that you enjoy the most. Less marbling and more lean. NY stip is always very lean. A bit tight grained but darn good to eat.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I like the chewier, but tastier beef they serve in Argentina. Americans are hung up on tenderness. My husband used to laugh about that :)

I am looking forward to the steak and it's good enough that I will use nothing but salt and pepper on it.

Sounds good and that's all it needs...oh I bit of garlic powder wouldn't hurt it tho. :wink:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
Or eat more lean cuts of red meat. Is grass fed more environmental friendly and if so why??

Healthier for humans because the fat composition is different and it tends to be leaner: Fat is fat on a cow. Just a higher content in grain fed beef depending on the breed
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/smart_pasture_operations/greener-pastures.html

Healther for the environment because:

-it requires less fossil fuel to produce, largely because grain production is so energy intensive (Grazing only...perhaps...growing, cutting, storing and feeding forage when grazing is unavailable requires just as much fuel)
-grass finishers use a whole lot fewer antibiotics than the feedlot boys (Probably)

-pastures sequester a lot more carbon than cornfields (Carbon?? Grass requires maintenace)

-grasslands aren't as subject to erosion as cornfields (Actually farm land is better maintained to avoid erosion than grasslands or pature land)

-grass-finished cattle produce less methane (????? takes longer to reach slaughter size). -

grass pasture provides more habitat for nesting birds and other species than a monocultural grain field (Few birds nest in pastures....they will visit but the same can be said of grain fields) -

leads to less concentration of manure in comparison with a feedlot... (Intake and digestibility determines manure production.... grass is the less digestible than grains and gain by-products)[/b]

1. Fat is not just fat. Fat from grass finished animals contains higher levels of Omega 3 and CLA than grain-finished beef. It isn't as dramatic as salmon, for example, but grass finished beef has been proven to be healthier. And I prefer the taste, but that is subjective.

2. Hay takes less energy to produce than corn.

3. Growing grass sequesters carbon. Tilling up ground to plant corn releases carbon from the soil. No-till reduces carbon release but then you get to use all those wonderful chemicals to burn down the weeds.

Grass does require maintenance. But I can fill most of my grasses nutrient needs through grazing management, composted bedding pack, and rotational overwintering. I might not get the same yield as a conventionally fertilized pasture, but the decrease in input costs and increases in soil health more than make up for any loss in total dry matter.

4. Good point on the length of life vs. methane emissions. I'll have to look into that one.

5. Few birds nest in pasture? I don't know about Texas, but up here bobolinks, meadowlarks, song sparrows, grasshopper sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, vesper sparrows and a host of other birds nest almost exclusively in pasture and hayfields.

It's the reason I carefully manage where I'm putting my cattle and taking hay from May until early July. We measure our success not just in pounds of beef produced per acre, but bobolink fledges per acre. Those little buggers come all the way from Argentina to breed and I do my best not to run them through the haybine or get them squashed by my bovines.

Grain fields support a few birds, but most of the declining species I listed do not breed in grain fields.

6. Feedlots concentrate manure and have higher potential for runoff, dust, and odor problems than your average pasture.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I like the chewier, but tastier beef they serve in Argentina. Americans are hung up on tenderness. My husband used to laugh about that :)

I am looking forward to the steak and it's good enough that I will use nothing but salt and pepper on it.

You can get it here.

Find yourself a farmer out in the Shenandoah Valley that raises grass-finished beef, preferably from a heritage breed, and try some.

I wouldn't call the beef we raise "chewy", but it has good texture. The roasts will cook to fork tender as long as you cook them low and slow, and I think the flavor is fantastic.

But I am biased.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Now will this get the same attention as the first article? doubt it!


Meat Production Link With Global Warming Called 'Misinformation'


WASHINGTON, March 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dr. Barry Popkin, the University of North Carolina nutrition professor who repeatedly blamed meat producers yesterday for contributing more to climate change than transportation, is ignoring Environmental Protection Agency data that directly contradict his claims, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claimed toda
In an editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Popkin argued that Americans should reduce their meat consumption in part because a 2006 United Nations report suggests "livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, far greater than that of transportation." In a Reuters news story today, Popkin said he was "pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock. I didn't expect it to be more than cars."

CCF said today that the EPA has characterized greenhouse-gas emissions related to the entire U.S. agriculture sector -- including meat, grain, fruit, vegetable, and fiber producers -- as just one-third of what Popkin attributes to meat production alone. Global estimates from the UN publication Popkin cited, "Livestock's Long Shadow," don't apply to American meat production.


In April 2008, the EPA released the 473-page "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006," a complete account of global-warming-related emissions in the United States and their sources. This report concluded that "the agricultural sector was responsible for emissions of 454.1 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, or 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

EPA data included in this report also demonstrate that greenhouse-gas emissions related specifically to meat production make up an even smaller part of the total -- just 2.58 percent.

"U.S. meat production contributes a laughably tiny amount of carbon emissions to the climate-change picture," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "The 2006 United Nations report mistakenly painted the United States with the same broad brush as China, Brazil, and other countries. But our domestic livestock operations are far more efficient and environmentally friendly. If Popkin had actually checked the data, he'd know that. It's time for everyone, from the PETAs to the Popkins, to stop spreading environmental misinformation about meat."

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. For media inquiries, contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.



Source: Center for Consumer Freedom
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
They just had a discussion about this on Fox News--someone from the Cancer Society discussed his findings (which really wasn't based on a STUDY, but on a questionairre people filled out--not a real good thing to base a finding on, but they did)...but Fox News Medical Contributor gave a pretty good talk about the GOOD things found in beef. Good for him. And I never donate to the cancer society. I think they could have found a real cure for cancer long ago--only cancer has made doctors a lot of money. My mother died of cancer and my dad hated the cancer society,
so that probably colored my thinking.

The only thing Dr. Mark Siegel (FOX NEWS) said that I didn't care for was that it might not be red meat that caused the findings, but perhaps antibiotics or hormones that was given to the animals. I have a problem with that. The way I understand it, the hormones (IF they have been given) have no residual in an animal. They have tested and retested for this. Why would we, as beef raisers, want cattle injected with something that would HARM people? Not in our best interests, for sure.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Yanuck said:
Now will this get the same attention as the first article? doubt it!


Meat Production Link With Global Warming Called 'Misinformation'


WASHINGTON, March 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dr. Barry Popkin, the University of North Carolina nutrition professor who repeatedly blamed meat producers yesterday for contributing more to climate change than transportation, is ignoring Environmental Protection Agency data that directly contradict his claims, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claimed toda
In an editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Popkin argued that Americans should reduce their meat consumption in part because a 2006 United Nations report suggests "livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, far greater than that of transportation." In a Reuters news story today, Popkin said he was "pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock. I didn't expect it to be more than cars."

CCF said today that the EPA has characterized greenhouse-gas emissions related to the entire U.S. agriculture sector -- including meat, grain, fruit, vegetable, and fiber producers -- as just one-third of what Popkin attributes to meat production alone. Global estimates from the UN publication Popkin cited, "Livestock's Long Shadow," don't apply to American meat production.


In April 2008, the EPA released the 473-page "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006," a complete account of global-warming-related emissions in the United States and their sources. This report concluded that "the agricultural sector was responsible for emissions of 454.1 teragrams of CO2 equivalent, or 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

EPA data included in this report also demonstrate that greenhouse-gas emissions related specifically to meat production make up an even smaller part of the total -- just 2.58 percent.

"U.S. meat production contributes a laughably tiny amount of carbon emissions to the climate-change picture," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "The 2006 United Nations report mistakenly painted the United States with the same broad brush as China, Brazil, and other countries. But our domestic livestock operations are far more efficient and environmentally friendly. If Popkin had actually checked the data, he'd know that. It's time for everyone, from the PETAs to the Popkins, to stop spreading environmental misinformation about meat."

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. For media inquiries, contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.



Source: Center for Consumer Freedom

It shouldn't get the same amount of attention.

It was prepared by an industry front group.

Astro-turf-roots politics.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
There's a small problem with the liberal's cow fart theory, well, actually, a big problem. They don't seem to realize that before there were 90 million cows farting and belching in this country, there were 90 million buffalo farting and belching in this country. So, really, what has changed? Has Gore been sniffing the farts of both species and concluded that bovine farts have more egg smell in them, and thus more green house gasses?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
There's a small problem with the liberal's cow fart theory, well, actually, a big problem. They don't seem to realize that before there were 90 million cows farting and belching in this country, there were 90 million buffalo farting and belching in this country. So, really, what has changed? Has Gore been sniffing the farts of both species and concluded that bovine farts have more egg smell in them, and thus more green house gasses?

Most estimates are that only 60 Million bison inhabited North America at any one time. :wink:

Wonder how much greenhouse gas a Mastodon/Mammoth would produce?
 

Ben H

Well-known member
There is strong evidence that too much red meat causes free radicials from the iron, this can lead to colon cancer. Not as much of an issue for females because they need red blood cells replaced every month, seriously. A diet with good fiber can offset the colon cancer risk.
 
Top