First, I didn't see the Stossel report, so am not totally familiar with the presentation.
Then, I do think any time a good word can be gotten onto national media that supports traditional beef production, it can't be all bad!!!
Aren't the detractors of the Stossel report doing exactly what they claim he has done? Or worse??? They make claims against Dr. Capper's information, yet provide no sources of scientific research verifying their claims.
From our own production of beef cattle, I know that it is about as natural as it can get, with cattle living on natural native grass pastures, with no annual planting, fertilizing, etc. until they are from eight to 16 or so months of age when going into a feedlot situation after we sell them. Age we sell them depends on drought conditions and our pasture conditions, this year being one of the oldest groups we sell, at about 16 months. They will likely be fed for a short time, and the feed most likely will be forages and some grain.
Implications promoting "grass fed" beef usually imply that "factory farms" feed only corn, and force feed it, at that! That is ridiculous, especially given the high prices for corn!
No mention was made by either group, which is disappointing to me, of any testing of the beef to validate accusations of unwanted residues.
I know it used to be true that beef was not allowed to contain ANY residues of anything! I do not know current status, with the exception that any marinades or other addititions must be listed on the label.
It seems there are many stories trashing traditionally produced beef by anti-beef activists, and by the people producing so called 'natural, organic, or grass-fed' beef. I believe it is time traditional producers point out the good things about our beef, and even ask that tests be made to compare just what is IN beef produced by all systems. Traditional beef producers worked to get the mandate for NO RESIDUES required for our beef. Has that requirement been changed?
mrj
