Taking Out the Carbage

[This piece was written for my “Taking Out the Carbage” column in Kit Pharo’s “Pharo Cattle Company Update.” I’m "leveraging" it here in the hope that it will help me get back into regular contributions to this blog …]

“Title page of "La Physiologie du Goût" ("The Physiology of Taste") by French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) with a portrait of the author. 1848 edition.” From Wikipedia

"Shun anything made with flour, no matter in what form it hides; do you not still have the roast, the salad and the leafy vegetables?"

This quote from Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin's The Physiology of Taste, published in 1825, makes three points:

1. Carbohydrate restriction is not a new concept. The notion of the fattening carbohydrate has been around for almost two hundred years. Nor is it a "fad" diet. Its status as the most effective means of treating obesity was thoroughly established and well accepted by researchers and clinicians until the 1960s.

2. Those genetically predisposed to fatten (us "easy keepers") who want to be as lean as their genetics will allow them to be (and those exhibiting the various conditions of metabolic syndrome) should limit their carbohydrate intake. The degree of restriction will be individually determined. The easiest place to start is by avoiding added sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages. But we must also limit starch. Starch, when digested, is sugar (glucose).It doesn't matter if it comes from "healthy whole grains" or refined white flour. Its effect on blood sugar is quite similar.

3. Any diet that includes "the roast, the salad and the leafy vegetables" can hardly be called boring! People typically do not suffer hunger on this type of diet, and since they experience greater weight loss and improvements in metabolic markers, it is an easier diet to maintain than low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets.

"Oh, Heavens!" all you readers of both sexes will cry out, "oh Heavens above! But what a wretch the Professor is! Here in a single word he forbids us everything we most love, those little white rolls ... and those cookies ... and a hundred other things made with flour and butter, with flour and sugar, with flour and sugar and eggs! He doesn't even leave us potatoes, or macaroni! Who would have thought this of a lover of good food who seemed so pleasant?"

"What's this I hear?" I exclaim, putting on my severest face, which I do perhaps once a year. "Very well, then: eat! Get fat! Become ugly, and thick, and asthmatic, and finally die in your own melted grease: I shall be there to watch it."

Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, 1825


edited 10:06 6/18/2012

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Truly "Heart-Healthy!"

To mark Valentine’s day, I propose - with tongue firmly in cheek - a new “Heart Check” logo. What do you think?

I’m posting again after a long absence. A lot has been happening and a great deal has changed. My goal is to publish regularly, but the nature of my posts may need to change. I really won’t know that until I actually start writing again, so here goes!

Last September I changed jobs after more than 16 years. I am now Barenbrug USA’s Forage Product Manager. Every day presents multiple learning (and re-learning!) moments with frequent calls to the long-term archive for information I used to have a firm grip on. It’s great to be working in forage agriculture again, but the seed industry is new to me. Barenbrug, a family owned company founded in 1904, is among the top 20 seed companies, worldwide. The vast majority of our business is grass seed. Barenbrug is truly “Great in Grass!” And they support my continued “Grass Based Health” activities. I presented a paper, “Saturated Fat and Cholesterol: Health Hazards or Vital Nutrients?” at the 2012 American Forage and Grassland Council Conference in Louisville, KY, January 10. I’ve posted a video that combines a slide set with an audio recording here.

As I’ve walked through this time of transition, I’ve become aware of all the anxiety, conflict, and frustration I’d been living with in my previous job. I wasn’t consciously aware of it then, but now that I’ve made the move it’s obvious. It’s similar to the time I realized, while carrying two twenty pound bags of bird seed to my car one day, that I used to carry more than that around with me all the time. Sometimes we need a push to make a change.

One effect of the anxiety regarding the impending career change was a loss of focus on my dietary discipline, I’m afraid. And I experienced the completely predictable results. So I’m applying the principles and re-establishing the practices that worked before and are working again. Nothing magic, just basic carbohydrate restriction and intermittent fasting. I hope to get to my goal weight by May.

Why May? Because Nancy and I will be on the 5th Low Carb Cruise! Neither of us have been on a cruise before, and we’re looking forward to meeting folks whose books and blogs have helped us on our journey. A perfect way to celebrate our 35th anniversary.

Last August I presented a poster at the first Ancestral Health Symposium. This August I’ll present “The Reality of Ruminants and Liebeg’s Barrel: Examining the New ‘Conventional Wisdom’” at Ancestral Health Symposium 2012!

I’ve been invited to speak at the Wise Traditions 2012 on the “Science and Art of Pasture Feeding.” This will be their 13th annual conference, held in Santa Clara, California Nov 9-12.

Primal / Paleo Valentine

So, let’s all walk forward into whatever this New Year brings our way. If you’ve fallen short of your resolutions, you can always start over. It’s never too late. A re-evaluation may be necessary to make sure they’re realistic. A resolution to lose 30 pounds in a month probably needs to be re-thought. But great changes can be accomplished, one step at a time. Last weekend we saw a friend who’s lost 180 pounds, and is off all cholesterol, blood pressure, and diabetes medications!

Is Grass Fed Beef Really “Rich in Omega 3s?”

The subjects of n-6 and n-3 fatty acid (commonly referred to as Omega-6 and Omega-3 fatty acids) ratios, dietary fiber, salt, and anti-oxidants came up frequently during the Ancestral Health Symposium back in August. I was frankly surprised at the concern several presenters voiced about the last three. I thought they’d been fairly debunked, but apparently not. Perhaps I’ll discuss them in a future post. I’ve written before about the relative importance of grass-fed meat in our diet, and the overstated benefits of grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef. But this subject came up again recently on the Nutrition and Metabolism Society e-mail list, so I think it’s worth a re-visit.

Any discussion of n-6 and n-3 fatty acids in general, and in beef in particular, ought to include the following points: the strength of data suggesting their importance; the importance of the n-6:n-3 ratios; and the n-3 content of beef vs. other foodstuffs.

The literature discussing the benefits of n-3 fatty acids is replete with words like “associated,” and “linked.” Tom Naughton’s “Science for Smart People” presentation is a great introduction to interpreting these words and the importance of claims made with them. The following statement comes from a “A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef” (Daley, et al. 2010):

“Danish physicians observed that Greenland Eskimos had an exceptionally low incidence of heart disease and arthritis despite the fact that they consumed a diet high in fat.”

Can you say “Greenland Paradox?” I doubt that was the only dietary difference. It would seem prudent to keep this in mind while we discuss the reduction in coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, depression, etc. that have been listed as beneficial effect of n-3 supplementation. In addition, evidence exists to suggest that concern about ingesting too much polyunsaturated fatty acids in general, and n-3 fatty acids in particular, is warranted.

Cordain, et al. reported the n-6:n-3 ratio in tissues from wild ruminants and compared them to values for beef that had been published previously. This paper was then referenced in a post on Science Blog from Purdue University:

"Both grass-fed steers and the wild ruminants have a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids slightly above two in meat. In other words, two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3," Watkins says. "That ratio is much lower than the ratios of 5-to-1 to 13-to-1 reported in previous studies for grain-fed steers."

However, the published range in n-6:n-3 ratios in “grass-fed” and “grain-fed” beef is far greater than that suggested in this paper, as shown in the data from eight papers presented in Table 1. Three of the studies cited in Table 1 having a lower ratio in grain-fed beef than the range stated by Cordain, et al.

Given that many variables (i.e. age of animal, sex, breed, tissue, management details) can affect the n-6:n-3 ratio, it is unwise to make blanket statements about what those ratios are. In addition, Garia, et al. demonstrated that some amount of grain can be fed to cattle without producing a high-value n-6:n-3 ratio in the beef.

Statistical significance does not necessarily equate to biological significance. It does not appear that we know enough to clearly state that these are important differences. Tom Naughton’s presentation, once again, makes this point. In addition, there appears to be a range in what the desirable range ought to be.

The World Health Organization recommends that polyunsaturated fats make up 3 - 7% of the energy in the diet. Some experts advise that one should consume a minimum of 3% of energy from omega-6 fatty acids and between 0.5% and 1% from omega-3. Research scientists recommend ratios varying from 5:1 to 10:1 omega-6 to omega-3. Other experts suggest a ratio of between 1:1 and 4:1 as being optimal. What are we getting? The current ratio in our diet is estimated to be 14:1 to 20:1 (from here).

Focusing on ratios instead of quantity can be misleading. A helpful list of n- 6 and n- 3 amounts in various foodstuffs is published here. Soybean oil has an n-6:n-3 ratio of 7.42, less than 4 of the ratio values for grain-fed beef presented in Table 1. But an ounce (28g) of soybean oil contains 14,361 mg of n-6 fatty acids, 21.5 times the amount contained in 4 ounces of raw grain-fed ground beef (668 mg n-6)! The n-6:n-3 ratio of roasted chicken leg meat is 9.53, essentially the same as listed for conventional ground beef. But one cup (140 g) contains 2,268 mg of n-6.

This same source states that grass fed ground beef contains 100 mg of n-3 per 4 ounces (raw). Considering that one 3.75 ounce (106 g) can of Vital Choice’s albacore solid white tuna (yes, tuna!) in extra virgin olive oil contains almost 3 grams (2,926 mg) of n-3 fatty acids it is, at best, an exaggeration to call grass fed beef a “rich” source of n-3 fatty acids. Even a comparison of grass fed ground beef with grain fed ground beef doesn’t justify the label: This same source shows only a 22 mg difference per 4 ounces of raw meat. What happens when the meat is cooked? A 4 ounce (cooked weight), pan-browned ground beef patty only contains 20 mg, so cooking loss appears to be significant.

Examining the data in these papers demonstrates the fact that beef, no matter how it’s produced, is not a rich source of n-3 fatty acids. And beef, not matter how it’s produced, is not a rich source of n- 6 fatty acids, either.

I want to emphasize that I’m focusing solely on the nutritional aspect of the beef, not on the issues of confined animal feeding operations, grain production, animal health, etc. I’m aware of these matters and I am NOT minimizing them. I celebrated my 55^th birthday by presenting a poster at the Ancestral Health Symposium, but my celebratory birthday steak was postponed until the following morning. I pulled off the interstate and enjoyed a delicious steak and eggs breakfast. The very next thing I encountered as I got back on the highway was a large beef feedlot. The sight and smell were impressive, to say the least. Addressing these issues by exaggerating nutrient differences and their importance, however, is NOT a winning strategy. Instead, we might want to look at the monetary side.

It’s a good time to be a grass farmer – turning green grass into dollars, via a grazing ruminant. Today’s market has created a tremendous potential for income from the stocker business – buying beef calves and feeding them on pasture - gaining 200 – 300 lbs in 150 days or less - before selling them as feeder cattle. The following is from a Beef Magazine on-line article, which seems to be quoting this Oklahoma State University Extension Service publication:

"Heavy-feeder prices increased to new seasonal highs in early July and are still holding at remarkably strong levels," says Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing specialist. "The rollback between calf and feeder prices is very narrow; almost zero in some cases, resulting in very high stocker value of gain."

Peel offered this example for the first week of August: the Oklahoma combined auction price for Medium and Large #1 steers weighing 515 lbs. was $138.56/cwt.; it was $138.05/cwt. for steers weighing 727 lbs.

"This implies a value of gain of $1.37/lb. for 212 lbs. of gain," Peel says. For steers weighing 825 lbs., the price was $132.50/cwt., resulting in a value of gain of $1.22/lb. for 310 lbs. of gain."

For the record, value of gain is defined as the gross sale price of a head of cattle minus the gross purchase price, divided by the pounds of gain. High calf and feeder prices, and the narrow price rollback, magnify the current opportunity.

"There is more incentive than there has ever been to grow and manage forage," Peel emphasizes. "Wheat pasture prospects in the southern Great Plains appear very poor at this point but the market is clearly encouraging somebody, somewhere, that has forage to put stocker gains on feeder cattle.

"The feeder cattle price structure will continue to offer high value of gain as a market incentive to add weight to cattle prior to feedlot placement. Stocker margins will generally be attractive for stocker production over a wide range of beginning and ending weights and total weight gain."

So, once again, there are valid reasons for eating grass fed beef – including the taste! But promoting grass fed beef because of its n-6:n-3 ratio is, at best, misleading. Beef, regardless of how it is fed, in not a “rich” source of n-3 or n-6 fatty acids. If you want more n-3 fatty acids in your diet, eat fatty fish and/or take a supplement. If you want less n-6 fatty acids in your diet, cut the grains and vegetable oils.

References:

Cordain, L., B.A. Watkins, G.L. Florant, M. Kelher, L. Rogers, Y Li. 2002. Fatty acid analysis of wild ruminant tissues: evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related chronic disease. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56, 181–191



Daley, C.A., A. Abbott, P.S. Doyle, G.A. Nader, S. Larson. 2010. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal 9:10


Descalzo, A., E.M. Insani, A. Biolatto, A.M. Sancho, P.T. Garcia, N.A. Pensel. 2005. Influence of pasture or grain-based diets supplemented with vitamin E on antioxidant/oxidative balance of Argentine beef. Meat Science 70:35-44.


Garcia, P.T., N.A. Pensel, A.M. Sancho, N.J. Latimori, A.M. Kloster, M.A. Amigone, J.J. Casal. 2008. Beef lipids in relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentina. Meat Science 79:500-8.


Leheska, J.M., L.D. Thompson, J.C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J.C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, M.F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. Journal Animal Science 86:3575-85.


Nuernberg, K., D. Dannenberger, G. Nuernberg, K. Ender, J. Voigt, N.D. Scollan, J.D. Wood, G.R. Nute, R.I. Richardson. 2005. Effect of a grass-based and a concentrate feeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science 94:137-47.


Ponnampalam, E.N., N.J. Mann, A.J. Sinclair. 2006. Effect of feeding systems on omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beef cuts, potential impact on human health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 15(1):21-9.


Realini, C.E., S.K. Duckett, G.W. Brito, M.D. Rizza, D. De Mattos. 2004. Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science 66:567-77.


S. K. Duckett, J. P. S. Neel, J. P. Fontenot and W. M. Clapham. 2009. Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: III. Tissue proximate, fatty acid, vitamin, and cholesterol content. Journal Animal Science 87:2961-2970.

The Big Picture

It’s almost time for the Ancestral Health Symposium. I’m looking forward to seeing friends, meeting lots of folks, and listening to so many of the people I’ve been learning from these past few years.  I’ll be presenting a poster on Saturday, August 6^th. A marvelous way to celebrate my birthday!

The title of my poster is “Grass Based Health: The Big Picture.” My take-home point is that a human diet based on animal products – particularly those from ruminant animal – is far more “sustainable” than plant based diets.

As we consider this topic, we need to understand that our perception of “wilderness” and “nature” has been as distorted as our understanding of what constitutes a “healthy diet.” I find the following quote by D. F. Lott extremely helpful:

“When Lewis and Clark headed west … they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans” (Lott, 2002). 

When Europeans first arrived in North America, they found anything but a primeval landscape. Instead, they encountered a land significantly altered by humans through the use of fire, sophisticated agricultural techniques, mining, and road and mound building (Mann, 2006).

“At the time of Columbus the Western Hemisphere had been thoroughly painted with the human brush. Agriculture occurred in as much as two-thirds of what is now the continental United States, with large swathes of the Southwest terraced and irrigated. Among the maize fields in the Midwest and Southeast, mounds by the thousand stippled the land. The forests of the eastern seaboard had been peeled back from the coasts, which were now lined with farms. Salmon nets stretched across almost every ocean-bound stream in the Northwest. And almost everywhere there was Indian fire.”

“The virgin forest was not encountered in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,” wrote historian Stephen Pyne, “it was invented in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Far from destroying pristine wilderness, that is, Europeans bloodily created it. (Mann, 2006)

With that background as introduction, here is the text from my poster.

Introduction:

Forage plants are those plants eaten by animals directly as pasture, crop residue, or immature cereal crops, those cut for fodder, and conserved for later use as hay or silage. These diverse crops vary widely in their adaptation and feed quality. They are typically low in fat, high in fiber, and not utilizable by humans.

Grass, clover, and forbes pasture. This plant material is high in moisture, crude
protein and fiber and low in fat. It's also not directly utilizable by humans.

While forage crops can be grown on ground incapable of producing feedstuffs that are utilizable by humans, greater yields can be achieved on better arable ground. These crops have limited economic value until converted into meat, milk, and fiber. Three quarters of the feed consumed by the United States’ beef cattle is forage.

The symbiotic relationship between the ruminant animal and the microbial population in the rumen permits these mammals to thrive on a low-fat, high-fiber diet. This production of high-quality protein and animal fat is the truly sustainable form of agriculture.

The ruminant and it's associated microbial population convert this
material that cannot sustain humans into products that can -
high quality protein and animal fat.

Aspects of sustainability:

Population: The archeological record and anthropological research demonstrates that the human diet was based upon animal products. Research confirms that the modern diet ought to be, too. The mistaken belief that the healthy diet is a plant-based one, one based upon carbohydrates, has produced an epidemic of chronic disease in the United States. The costs of this epidemic are unsustainable. Diets based upon animal products produce improvements in a wide variety of chronic diseases. These diets are more sustainable – people stay on them – as compared with low-fat and semi-starvation diets.

Grass-fed ribeye steaks. Grass-fed is NOT low fat!

Ecology: Grasslands, including sown pasture and rangeland, are among the largest ecosystems in the world. The proportion of the earth's land area covered by grasslands in 2000 was estimated at 3.5 billion hectares (8.6 billion acres), representing 26% of the world land area and 70% of the world agricultural area. There are 255 million hectares (630 million acres) of pasture, pastured woodland, pastured cropland and public grazing lands in the US. Less than 9 percent of the cropland is pasture.

Perennial forage crops increase soil organic matter,  fixing more carbon than woodland. Pasture crops reduce soil erosion, improving the infiltration of water into the soil profile and surface water quality. Without managed grazing or periodic burning, many grasslands will not remain grasslands. Ecological succession results in encroachment by woody, less productive species.

The following image is a close-up from the middle of this picture.

Grass grows naturally in a wide variety of sites, making it an
ideal crop. It's always better to work with nature!

Economic: Forage-based livestock production systems are fundamental to the global economy, and are more economically sustainable than annual cropping systems. Grasslands contribute to the livelihoods of more than 800 million people, worldwide. They are a source of food and forage, energy and wildlife habitat. The single greatest source of new wealth (the conversion of natural resource into a salable commodity) in the US is the conversion of grass into beef.

Pasture-based agriculture produces increased wealth while requiring fewer non-renewable inputs than annual crops. Biological nitrogen fixation by forage legumes and efficient nutrient cycling via the grazing animals’ dung and urine reduces fertilizer requirements. Managed grazing of adapted pasture mixes reduces pesticide use. These perennial crops require less tillage, cultivation, and harvest than annual crops, meaning less equipment is needed, and less petroleum used.

The key to farm sustainability is lowering the cost of production, rather than achieving maximum production. Well-managed pasture-based production systems are the means of achieving the lowest cost of production of animal products.

Achieving an acceptable profit at lower levels of production means more farmers can remain in business or begin production. More farmers means healthier rural communities.

Conclusion:

Our grasslands are not widely appreciated, nor are they close to achieving their potential. Important research and demonstration is needed, as well as adoption of suitable practices from other countries that have better developed grazing industries.

The adoption of diets based upon animal product instead of cereal products is the sustainable choice!

References:

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. Accessed July 19, 2011. 

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. Are grasslands under threat? Accessed July 21, 2011. 

Heath, M. E., R. F. Barnes, D. S. Metcalfe, eds. 1985. Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

Lott, D.F. 2002. American Bison: A Natural History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mann, Charles C. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Vintage.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2011. State Fact Sheets. Accessed July 18, 2011.