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

Wednesday WSJ article on ethanol

jodywy

Well-known member
mrj wrote:
Some people insist grass-fed means no grain.

Yes, it does...and the most important of those "some people" is FSIS!
thought grain was just grass seed, is not barley, oats, wheat, corn all grasses?
 

mrj

Well-known member
jodywy, for the record, it was RobertMac, not I, who added "yes, it does..." to my question asking if 'grass-fed' meant no grains. I agree with you that they are, at least technically, grass seeds.

Re. ethanol production, where does switch grass rank in value for ethanol production? We have seen articles touting it as one of the best or most efficient sources. Think it may only have to be planted, then harvested and re-grows. It is a grass, isn't it?

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
jodywy said:
RobertMac said:
mrj said:
Some people insist grass-fed means no grain.

Yes, it does...and the most important of those "some people" is FSIS!
thought grain was just grass seed, is not barley, oats, wheat, corn all grasses?
The chemistry of grain is not the same as the chemistry of the plant...leaf and stem.

mrj, I corrected the post so no one what get confused as to who said what...I hope that helps you because I don't add anything to someone else's post!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sorry RM, I should have said you "answered", rather than you "added" to my post, tho your words appeared to be mine.

Guess jodywy sort of linked them, I'm sure not intending any misinterpretation.

Like you, I don't want or need anyone attributing others' words to me!

Anyway, it's a moot point since the correction.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
Grain ethanol is made out of the starch of the seed (grain) which is converted to a sugar then to ethanol, the way I understand it. That leaves the oil that is in the corn unchanged into energy, but there are some methods of extracting that oil to make biodiesel also. Cellulostic ethanol will be made from cellulose, which is the main fiber of grass and most plants. They have yet to find the bacteria or enzymes that will efficiently do this if at all. They should have been funded a long time ago for this science.

mrj, it is the same with grains and grass. Grains are stores of starch and grass is mostly cellosic material that is broken down by the bacteria in the intestinal tract of the cow and the cow digests these bacteria, for the most part. With grain, you can skip a lot of the bacteria for cellosic digestion.

Yes, mrj, there is a difference between feeding grain and feeding grass even if it comes off the same plant. If you don't believe me, try eating some wheat leaves or straw.

Before you start dividing the beef producers for the NCBA strategy plan, yes, you can get grass fed beef from the more arid west.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Tex/Econ, if you will study the history just on this site, you can see that the Grass Fed Beef proponent are the ones attempting to divide producers into those selling 'good' (Grass-Fed) and those selling 'dangerous' (Grain Fed) beef.

Fact is, Grass Fed beef is almost exclusively what my family has eaten forever, and we prefer it, though for special occasions some wonderfull Prime beef, properly cut and prepared is a real treat for us.

Fact, too, is that MANY consumers strongly prefer Grain Fed beef.

I believe there is NO difference, nutritionally, other than POSSIBLE fat content, between the two.

Obvioulsy, there is a difference in nutrients and taste/texture between a grass leaf or stem,and it's seeds. I never said there isn't. Others, not I, HAVE said or implied that feeding grass is good, and feeding grains is bad.

My observation is that we need BOTH grass-fed and grain-fed cattle to serve needs/wants of consumers.

Just don't use trash talk against grain fed to promote grass fed is all I ask.

BTW, please shine up and try to repair the cracks in your crystal ball and tell us what the "NCBA strategy plan" is which YOU believe depends upon "dividing the beef producers". If you know of a diabolical plan detrimental to cattle producers, aren't you obligated to share that information for the greater good?

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex/Econ, if you will study the history just on this site, you can see that the Grass Fed Beef proponent are the ones attempting to divide producers into those selling 'good' (Grass-Fed) and those selling 'dangerous' (Grain Fed) beef.

Fact is, Grass Fed beef is almost exclusively what my family has eaten forever, and we prefer it, though for special occasions some wonderfull Prime beef, properly cut and prepared is a real treat for us.

Fact, too, is that MANY consumers strongly prefer Grain Fed beef.

I believe there is NO difference, nutritionally, other than POSSIBLE fat content, between the two.

Obvioulsy, there is a difference in nutrients and taste/texture between a grass leaf or stem,and it's seeds. I never said there isn't. Others, not I, HAVE said or implied that feeding grass is good, and feeding grains is bad.

My observation is that we need BOTH grass-fed and grain-fed cattle to serve needs/wants of consumers.

Just don't use trash talk against grain fed to promote grass fed is all I ask.

BTW, please shine up and try to repair the cracks in your crystal ball and tell us what the "NCBA strategy plan" is which YOU believe depends upon "dividing the beef producers". If you know of a diabolical plan detrimental to cattle producers, aren't you obligated to share that information for the greater good?

mrj

Maybe it was just your plan, mrj.

When I look at advertising for chicken, I see that there is advertising for no antibiotic chicken and chicken without that claim. This is both from the same company. Are they advertising against themselves as you suggest?

The fact is that to get more money from beef, demand has to be divided up, just as packers try to divide suppliers. Can you tell me what would be legal and what would be illegal in this dividing of suppliers under the PSA?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
mrj said:
I believe there is NO difference, nutritionally, other than POSSIBLE fat content, between the two.
You're wrong, but the differences is in the fatty acid profile.

I agree that grainfed beef IS NOT dangerous, but has some perception problems...antibiotics and hormones. I believe it is the second best food humans can consume...right behind grassfed beef!!! :wink: :)

If you don't think feeding grain to cattle can cause problems, google 'feedlot antibiotics acidosis'. There is absolutely no doubt that grain changes the digestive chemistry and biology which effects the endocrine system.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The CLA Bonus The meat and milk from grassfed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" or CLA. When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their milk and meat contain as much as five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets.12

http://americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-natural-beef.asp
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
PORKER said:
The CLA Bonus The meat and milk from grassfed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" or CLA. When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their milk and meat contain as much as five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets.12

http://americangrassfedbeef.com/grass-fed-natural-beef.asp

Correction: the author of the article is Jo Robinson, not Jo Johnson. I need to email Mark and Pat!!
 

Latest posts

Top