tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post2874614044901845512..comments2024-03-12T01:21:53.290-07:00Comments on Grass Based Health: Hormones and Nitrites and Antibiotics, Oh My!!Pete Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02951593348759928455noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-73049000990523045452011-07-02T07:08:49.725-07:002011-07-02T07:08:49.725-07:00Thanks,Dana - I agree that there are many ways to ...Thanks,Dana - I agree that there are many ways to look at the issues we face today, and that there are many aspects to the problems confronting us. My interest is trying to determine the "<a href="http://grassbasedhealth.blogspot.com/2010/12/whats-limiting-factor.html" rel="nofollow">short staves</a>," because that's where we'll make the greatest impact. Always. We're in the condition we are because of the confident assertions of a handful of individuals who shifted the thinking on diet, health, and human nutrition - without a scientific basis. <br /><br />One point is that there's a difference between the correct use of hormone implants or antibiotics (therapeutic or subtherapeitic) and "adding hormones or antibiotics" to the meat. <br /><br />Yes - confinement and concentration of animals, either in a lot (or building) or on pasture (as one must do in managed grazing systems) will increase the chance of disease transmission. <br /><br />Many of these practices are followed to achieve greater profit. Our whole society, not just agriculture, probably needs to explore the concept of "enough." There is no sustainability without profit, but many American farmers could make greater profits by reducing their <a href="http://grassbasedhealth.blogspot.com/2011/05/busy-month.html" rel="nofollow">production costs</a> and producing less. <br /><br />American agriculture produces what the market demands. We need to undo the damage done by 40 years of the "low fat is good health" message. As the newly-informed consumer base grows, producers will supply it. We do need to re-learn how to cook grass-fed meat. Interestingly enough, meat from mature animals contains more hormones than that from hormone-implanted steers or from heifers.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry it took so long to post it and reply.Pete Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02951593348759928455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-10906221314347120092011-06-29T21:03:50.263-07:002011-06-29T21:03:50.263-07:00OK, but, I'm having trouble understanding why ...OK, but, I'm having trouble understanding why we could get by eating meat without adding hormones or antibiotics to it before the 20th century but now, all of a sudden, it's vitally necessary. I probably should point out that part of the reason antibiotics are considered "necessary" is because of the confined conditions so many food animals are in for at least part of their lives--get rid of CAFO conditions, the need for the drugs would likely decrease, even if it wouldn't disappear entirely. I suspect this is the case because what we seem to mostly be talking about here is pigs, and, well, in the U.S. most of them are raised in confinement.<br /><br />Hormones? We really do eat ruminants too young. In our hunter-gatherer days we'd have gone for the more mature individuals in the herd, the ones with some fat on them. Now we want them young because young is lean. So we have to maximize the protein per individual, I guess, for that reason. People need to change their expectations about what meat is and how to prepare and eat it--and the people who raise this meat need to quit treating it as an extractive industry.<br /><br />There are wider problems here than the narrow questions of whether A or B substance is bad for people.Dana Seilhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11749354913843954242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-67461540582239991462011-06-27T05:40:45.906-07:002011-06-27T05:40:45.906-07:00Gabe -
Great suggestion.
Everyone, it seems, ha...Gabe -<br /><br />Great suggestion. <br /><br />Everyone, it seems, has "skin in the game." There's no such thing as a point of view that is nobody's point of view, and clearly the AMI has it's point of view and interests. I'm interested in the references they cite vs. the claims made by others and their references. This whole topic has become a massive muddle, I'm afraid. I am a consumer of grass-fed beef and lamb. The published data on nutrient composition and content, however, is not as compelling as many confidently state ... <br /><br />Yes, I know that I've got my own personal history of preferring to ingest things that are not good for me. Perhaps cows are smarter than people (or at least me!) ... Corn is a grass, and so is sugar cane ... "Natural" is *such* a problematic term. What does it <i>mean</i>?Pete Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02951593348759928455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-21132461796704209612011-06-22T11:43:33.669-07:002011-06-22T11:43:33.669-07:00Pete, one of the sources you cite is the American ...Pete, one of the sources you cite is the American Meat Institute, which obviously has its own agenda... to promote meat consumption. While I don't have anything against that, it was interesting to me to read that they qualify as a 'myth' that meat from grass-fed animals is no better than meat from corn-fed animals. Also they call a 'myth' that feeding corn to cattle is 'unnatural', arguing that when cattle are given the choice of feeding grass or corn, they prefer corn. I could think the same... let a child choose between candy and a piece of meat and chances are that candy will be the winner... does that makes it 'natural'? <br /><br />Another piece of the AMI's argument that feeding corn is not 'unnatural' is the fact that corn is the seed of a grass.... thus eating the actual seed is, in fact, natural... Some kind of twisted logic there in my opinion.<br /><br />I would love to read your comments to their debunking those 'myths'.<br /><br />GabeGabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16635939361865017088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-70395981103678577502011-06-11T10:01:04.942-07:002011-06-11T10:01:04.942-07:00Thanks, Richard -
Interesting position qualificati...Thanks, Richard -<br />Interesting position qualification, an "ability to not face scientific evidence." So many have been so poorly served by the "experts." <br /><br />Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I just figured out why I haven't been able to post comments!<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PetePete Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02951593348759928455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7969883425412998759.post-12705562895956048802011-06-06T05:31:46.471-07:002011-06-06T05:31:46.471-07:00You cite the study of the National Academy of Scie...You cite the study of the National Academy of Sciences, but the group that would be charged with such a study is the Institute of Medicine which is composed of the usual lipophobic, "conventional wisdom" experts who are in the institute because of their ability to not face scientific evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com