Bookmark and Share

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Grass-Fed Beef Is Indeed Better, and John Stossel And J. L. Capper Appear To Be Shilling for Eli Lilly and Industrial Agriculture
Read the original blog post
November 19, 2010
1:43 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

On the one hand, it's heartening to see that the movement towards eating real meat has become enough of a threat to the hegemony of agribusiness and industrial meat production for the mainstream media to do a hit piece on it (source: Fox News.) On the other hand, it's dispiriting to see John Stossel pushing a flimsy tissue of falsehoods, thereby misleading people into making unhealthy and environmentally destructive food choices.

The first thing I noticed, upon actually reading what Stossel implied was the supporting scientific data, was that the document he referenced was not peer-reviewed science at all, but a…

Bookmark and Share
April 25, 2011
2:57 pm
Rachel
Guest

FANTASTIC response! Love the debunking of this crazy claim! Thank you!

Bookmark and Share
October 2, 2011
1:11 pm
pjnoir
Guest

I know this is a bit late but here goes ( Im new to your site and have been reading it all for the last few days- I am 80/20 Paleo for about 18 mts and have been working the last four to be 99.9 % paleo) What time of the season is grass fed really grass fed as some farms have little or no grass in the spring yet still sell sides and quaters. Have you read STEAK by Mark Schatzker? Talks a lot about grass fed beef ( Tallgrass )

Bookmark and Share
October 7, 2011
9:52 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

pjnoir:

Most farms will harvest hay to feed their cattle during seasons with no fresh forage...but grass-finished beef will have its best flavor and nutrition when it's been fed on fresh, green grass for at least 90 days, and preferably 120 (this from a Nevada rancher).

Exactly when this happens is dependent on the growing season for grass in your area.

No, I haven't read "Steak"...I'll look into it.  Thanks for the tip!

JS

 

Bookmark and Share
September 9, 2012
1:34 am
Bury, Lancashire, UK
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
May 23, 2012
Offline

This comments is VERY late coming but I think you'll find the problem of grass-fed versus corn-fed beef has just been solved….they're going to feed cattle candy instead.

High price of corn forcing farmers to feed candy to livestock

Ex Veggie

Bookmark and Share
September 9, 2012
12:28 pm
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

ExVeggie:

Something about this forum software is screwing up links: it tries to put an ellipsis in the middle to truncate it, but that causes the link itself to truncate.  If you want links to work, you have to format them as HTML.

JS

Bookmark and Share
September 10, 2012
1:05 am
Bury, Lancashire, UK
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
May 23, 2012
Offline

It looks like I need leading by the hand as despite having some knowledge of html I couldn't get my attempt to work. It still truncated the address while leaving all around it okay.

 

The address in my second post was deliberately split by me. If they are joined together they will get you to the article.

 

[Edit: I fixed the link in your original -JS]

Bookmark and Share
July 10, 2015
5:54 pm
david.gibson
Guest

While I agree with your overall assessment on health issues, I disagree with your "environmental impacts". With regard to your negative impact notes (placed in quotes below with my response in non quotes:

"Corn farming requires substantial fossil fuel input—mechanical tilling, planting, harvesting—versus pasture grass"
Fossil fuel input is not an environmental impact. It is an economic impact. My diesel truck has exhaust that is totally clean. The air right now is so clean that some doctors think that its very cleanliness may be causing the radical increase in asthma that children are suffering. Nor is the source of the fuel an environmental impact in and of itself. Windmills kill birds and require backup natural gas backup systems, photovoltaics use metals that are toxic. Water power blocks streams and rivers. However, wealth allows society to preserve the environment better then poverty. Look at Africa where they use the alternative fuels of wood and dung. An alternative impact to be considered is the economic impact that fuels cost money. This increases the farmers cost of doing business. My cousin switched to no-till farming and cut his output by half. However, he cut his use of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and fuels. He started making significant money for the first time in his career. (His prior career was as a grass fed dairy farmer and he lost money in that because of government regulation)

"Not to mention the carbon impact of making fertilizers and pesticides (the Haber process uses 3-5% of world natural gas production! No, that’s not a misprint) and transporting them to farms"
-Carbon impact or CO2 impact. Read the discussions on WattsUpWithThat and http://www.co2science.org
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were significantly higher at many points in the past. CO2 science is run by a father and son team that ran the CO2 research at the Dept of Agriculture for about 40 years prior to CO2 being politicized. They have a lot of information on CO2 that is being ignored in the "human caused catastrophic global warming" is going to destroy the biosphere discussion.

"Grain must be transported to the elevator and then to the feedlot, using fossil fuels"
This is the same as the first point in its essence. This is an economic impact but a minimal environmental impact. An alternative economic impact is that instead of growing the grain, the farmer could be growing something else.

By the way, a direct positive economic and environmental impact, is documented by Dept of Agriculture. Crops are about 50% more productive at current CO2 levels then they were at 1950 CO2 levels. We would have to use a lot more farmland and fertilizer to produce those crops without the increased CO2.

Keep up the good work with your web site. I am a recent discoverer of it and am still exploring it.

Trust but verify

Walk in Peace

Bookmark and Share
November 5, 2015
1:40 am
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

David.Gibson:

Saying "CO2 levels were higher, earlier in the Earth's history" is true. It's also true that the oceans were hundreds of feet higher, and the entire Midwest was under water, from Kansas to the Appalachians.

You can also look up "anoxic event" to see what happens during quick CO2 spikes - everything in the deep ocean dies as the oceans stop turning over, and the entire planet smells like a rotting swamp for several hundred thousand years. An eyeblink in geological time, but I"m pretty sure we don't want to live in one!

Furthermore, even if you wish to discount CO2, the raw environmental impact of extracting fossil fuels (e.g. fracking) can't be discarded.

JS

Bookmark and Share
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 86

Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1681

Members: 3423

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 247

Posts: 7159

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2105