Grass-Fed Beef Won’t Save the Planet
By George Wuerthner , 1-22-10
 |
|
 | |
| Grass-fed cattle destroying riparian zone. | |
|
Another livestock industry propaganda piece recently appeared in Time Magazine by Lisa Abend titled “How Grass fed Beef Can Save The Planet.” The basic premise of the article is that factory farming is bad, so grass-fed or free-range beef is good for the planet and even human health. Grass-fed beef is the latest fad with people who have little scientific training, and thus are easily duped by pseudo-scientific sounding pronouncements.
While there are some livestock operators who are promoting grass-fed beef, many of the advocates are well meaning people who are vulnerable to anything that have the word “natural” in it. Just because raising cows in factory farms on grains is bad for the Earth, does not mean that cows grazing on pasture or hay are better for the Earth.
The assumption of many people is that less industrialized makes it better to consume. Some of the “natural” folks eschew city water treated with chemicals, for instance, and prefer “natural” water sources. Yet many natural water sources have many unhealthy things in them. Arsenic, for instance, is often found at naturally high levels in water at levels that are a health risk to drink. One needs to be careful about assuming that anything more “natural” is automatically safer, healthier, and better for humans and the planet.
I do not want to contend that industrialized livestock production is good. There are huge problems with factory-raised meat. Cattle raised on grain tend to be given more hormones, and grain production generally requires heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as fossil fuels to operate machinery. But just because a cow grazes in a pasture, does not mean it is “green” or that eating grass-fed beef is environmentally beneficial.
Indeed, as a generalization, almost all the negatives associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) exist with grass-fed beef. And grass-fed livestock has many unique impacts not shared by their factory-raised counterparts that may be more environmentally destructive. The assumption that grass-fed beef is “healthier” is based more upon wishful thinking than reality.
One of the presumed benefits of grass-fed meat is the idea that somehow livestock fed grass reduces global warming gases. Research suggests that livestock, particularly cows, are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are warming the planet. One recent UN report finds that as much as 18% of the GHG are from livestock—more than all transportation and/or industry sources of GHG. Others put the figure even higher. No matter which studies are used, there is little dispute that cattle are a major contributor to global warming.
Fermentation in the animal’s rumen generates huge quantities of gas—between 30-50 liters per hour in adult cattle. So those proponents of grass-fed beef start with the simplistic assumption that since cattle evolved to eat grass, such a diet must be superior to grain-fed factory raised animals. Yet grass is a poor substitute for grains in terms of caloric energy per pound of feed. As a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain—all the while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting great quantities of methane.
Researcher, Nathan Pelletier of Nova Scotia has found that GHG are 50 percent higher in grass-fed beef. If somehow magically we could convert all factory grown cattle to free range grass-fed animals, our global warming situation would be greatly accelerated.
Beyond the GHG issue, free ranging cattle present other problems that CAFO raised animals do not. For instance, one of the major consequences of having cattle roaming the range is soil compaction. There’s not a single study that demonstrates that having a thousand pound cow trample soil is good for the land.
Soil compaction reduces water penetration, creating more run-off and erosion. Because water cannot percolate into the soil easily, soil compaction from cattle creates more arid conditions—a significant problem in the already arid West, but also an issue in the East since the soils are often moister for a longer period of time. Moist soils are more easily compacted.
Sometimes the influence of pasture grazing is long lasting. One study in North Carolina found that stream insect biota were still significantly different in streams heavily impacted by agriculture 50 years after agricultural use had ceased compared to control streams. Soil compaction also reduces the space in the top active layer of soil where most soil microbes live, reducing soil fertility.
Free ranging cattle trample riparian areas, the thin green lines where 70-80% of all western wildlife utilize for homes and food. According to the EPA livestock is the major source of pollution and riparian damage in the West. But that doesn’t let eastern cows off the hook since trampling of riparian areas also occurs in the East, though with less biological impact since fewer species are solely dependent on this habitat.
Cattle, of course, release a lot of manure on the soil. A typical 1,100 pound cow releases 92 pounds of manure a day as compared to a typical person a pound of feces Most of that excrement is left on the land where it washes into streams and adds to nutrient loading as well as the spread of disease like E coli bacteria. In fact, livestock manure is a major source of water-borne disease and pollution throughout the country.
To put this into perspective, consider that state of Vermont has approximately 150,000 cows, most of whom excrete their waste either directly on pastures or if collected from barns it is later spread on fields. In either case, most of this waste winds up on the land without further treatment. This is the same as permitting a city of nearly 14 million people to spread their human waste on the land!
It has been asserted without good evidence that grass-fed beef cattle produce less E-coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens. Yet all of these diseases have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain-fed livestock.
Outbreaks of diseases like E coli have been traced back to pastured animals. Notably, the E. coli spinach outbreak in California in 2006 was isolated from pastured cattle. And there are other examples.
By contrast CAFO operations, because of their scale and ability to collect and process manure in a treatment plant, can potentially be less polluting overall compared to grass-fed beef—though admittedly this is not common practice as yet.
There are disease issues for wildlife as well. For example, grass-fed animals carry disease that can harm native species. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) or Mad Cow disease is thought to have originated with domestic livestock and later transferred to elk and deer. And foot and mouth disease transmitted from cattle has been shown to infect bison. Brucellosis, another disease originating with domestic cattle, has created a huge controversy in Montana, where bison infected with the disease are killed when they wander from Yellowstone National Park.
Free range cattle are also problematic for other reasons as well. Take predators. Most grass-fed cattle are vulnerable to predators, and it is the presence of “free range livestock” that leads to conflicts and the eventual slaughter of everything from wolves to coyotes both as preventative or in retaliation for predation.
On western rangelands where livestock are often let loose on public lands, even the mere presence of cows socially displaces native herbivores like elk that simply won’t graze in the same place as cows. Since there are no empty niches, these native herbivores are displaced into lower quality habitat. Thus even “predator friendly” beef is more hype than reality.
One of the big problems with grain-fed livestock operations is the huge amount of land that is used to produce grain. Approximately 80-90 million acres of land in the US are used to grow corn alone. That is 80-90 million acres of once native prairie that is now growing a mono crop at a tremendous loss of biodiversity.
As bad as that plant community conversion may be for natural process, and native species, grass-fed beef generally dine on either pasture or hay—both of which consist of exotic grasses that are planted at the expense of native plants. In most states, the biggest single factor in the destruction of native plant communities has been their conversion to hay or pasture. Indeed, across the country more than 130 million acres have been converted to hay and pasture. To put this into perspective, the entire footprint of all urbanization and developed land in the entire US is about 60 million acres. In a sense one could argue that grass-fed cows have destroyed far more of the native plant cover than all the cities, highways, factories, Wal-Mart parking lots, etc. combined. No small impact. Whatever the exact figure may be, there is no denying that a lot of native plant communities have been converted to hay or pasture.
Keep in mind also that in the West, much of the pasture and hay is created by irrigation thus water withdrawals from streams and rivers. In most of the western United States, the majority of water consumed is not for domestic or industrial uses, but for agriculture, and the prime agricultural product produced is hay and/or irrigated pasture. As a consequence, aquatic ecosystems are fragmented, destroying fisheries, degrading riparian areas (water withdrawals affects water available for streamside vegetation), and increasing the effects of pollution (because toxins become more concentrated).
Even cattle grazing on native grasslands are not immune from judgment. One can’t be putting the majority of native grasses into the belly of exotic animals like cattle which are then exported from the system without impacting the ecosystem. Every blade of grass going into a cow’s belly is that much less forage for native animals, from grasshoppers to elk.
There are far more ecological problems I could list for grass-fed beef, but suffice to say cattle production of any kind is not environmentally friendly.
The further irony of grass-fed beef is that consumption of beef products is not healthy despite claims to the contrary. There may be less fat in grass-fed beef, but the differences are not significant enough to warrant the claim that beef consumption is “healthy.” There is a huge body of literature about the contribution of red meat to major health problems including breast, colon, stomach, bladder, and prostate cancer. The other dietary related malady is the strong link between red meat consumption and heart disease.
Another health claim is that grass-fed beef has more omega-3 fats which are considered important for lowering health attack risks. However, the different between grain-fed and grass-fed is so small as to be insignificant, not to mention there are many other non-beef sources for this. Fish, walnuts, beans, flaxseeds, winter squash and olive oil are only some of the foods that l provide concentrated sources of omega-3 fats. Arguing that eating grass-fed beef is necessary or healthier grain-fed beef is like claiming it is better to smoke a filtered cigarette instead of a non-filtered one. The health benefits are minor if they make a difference at all.
There may be ethical reasons to prefer grass-fed animals over the often inhumane treatment given to factory-farmed animals. But even that rationale seems hollow to me. If one is that concerned with ethical issues, one should consider whether keeping any animals captive for slaughter is really ethical.
Beef consumption, whether grass-fed or grain-fed animals is neither healthy for the planet nor for humans. Reducing or eliminating red meat—whether grass or grain fed—from one’s diet is one of the easiest way to “save” the planet.
George Wuerthner is the editor of Welfare Ranching—The Subsidized Destruction of the American West as well as a contributor to Fatal Harvest about Industrialized Agriculture, and a soon to be published book on Factory Farming.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Grass-Fed vs Grain-Fed Beef and the Holy Grail: A Literature Review
Several people have commented that switching from grain to grass feeding could be one of the solutions to the problem with foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock. Quotes like these are becoming more common on the Internet and in recent media reports:
“Products from grass-fed animals are safer than food from conventionally-raised animals.” Eatwild, 2008
“Research has shown that the strains of E. coli most devastating to humans are the product of feedlots, not cows. This is due to the animals being forced to eat an unnatural diet, and not their natural choice, grass.” Grass-Fed Beef: Safer and Healthier, Animal Welfare Approved, June 15, 2008
If true, changing the cow’s diet would be such a simple and cheap management practice to implement. Have we found the Holy Grail for food safety? Below is some research I did on the topic.
OVERVIEW
• Identification of on-farm management practices that would reduce or eliminate foodborne pathogens in cattle and other livestock (including diet changes) is an active area of research, but many study results are inconclusive. E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain fed livestock, and the studies show conflicting results regarding whether the levels of pathogens are higher, lower, or the same when animals are fed grass- or grain-based diets.
• There is no clear and consistent definition in the literature of “grass-fed,” but the majority of papers describe animals that are on pasture or confined, but receiving only hay-based diets. Last year, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims. More research on this topic is needed that compares rates of foodborne pathogens among grain and grass fed animals using a specific definition such as the USDA standard or other accepted definition.
• The original study by Diez-Gonzalez published in Science in 1998, and since cited numerous times in the literature and media, suggested that cattle could be fed hay for a brief period before slaughter to significantly reduce the risk of foodborne E. coli infection. They based this conclusion on a hypothesis that grain feeding increases acid resistance of E. coli in cattle. Although they showed increased acid resistance in E. coli from grain-fed cattle, but the sample size was small, and they used “generic” E. coli stains, not E. coli O157:H7.
• Studies by other researchers worldwide have since found little difference in acid resistant E. coli O157:H7 among grain- verses grass-fed cattle, and some even found more E. coli O157:H7 shed by grass-fed animals.
• It has been discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an acidic environment (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed/E. coli acid-resistance hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since pathogens can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.
• Outbreaks have traced back to grass-fed and pastured animals, as well as animals in feedlots. Notably, the E. coli O157:H7 spinach outbreak strain in 2006 was isolated from grass-fed cattle. Another outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 was linked recently to raw milk and colostrum from cattle raised organically on grass.
• In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly and consistently reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens entering the food chain. However, more research is needed into the influence of food animal diets. For example, preliminary experimental data shows a possible association between feeding dried distiller’s grains and shedding of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces.
INTRODUCTION
A systematic approach is necessary to combat the emerging challenges in food safety such as the unexplained “uptick” of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks and recalls linked to beef products. Interventions to protect the food supply should ideally occur across the continuum from “farm to fork.” The “Holy Grail” of pre-harvest (farm-level) food safety would be to find an effective, affordable, and practical means to prevent or reduce food animals from shedding foodborne pathogens in the first place so the dangerous bacteria never enter the human food chain. Since cattle or other livestock may be located near drinking water sources or vegetable crops, a farm-level intervention could also help to protect nearby water and crops from contamination by manure via runoff, transport by wildlife/insects, or other mechanisms.
Oliver et al (2008) published a comprehensive review of developments and future outlooks for pre-harvest food safety this month. Examples of potential farm-level management practices that have been studied for E. coli O157:H7 and other foodborne pathogens in livestock include:
• Antibiotics
• Bacteriophages (viruses of bacteria)
• Dietary changes
• Immunization
• Probiotics or prebiotics in animal rations
• Sanitation/hygiene (feed, water, environment)
• Wildlife and insect control
Unfortunately, the best approaches for on-farm control of foodborne pathogens in livestock remain elusive. No single management practice, or even a combination of methods, has proven to be very effective or reliable in preventing foodborne pathogen colonization in livestock. Clearly, sanitation including clean feed/water sources and insect control are important, but difficult to maintain in a farm environment. Livestock immunizations are not available for most foodborne pathogens with the exception of an E. coli O157:H7 vaccine under development (and some ask “who would pay for such a program?” since cattle do not become ill from E. coli O157). Use of antibiotics is problematic because it can lead to resistance.
GRASS VERSUS GRAIN FEEDING
Definition of “Grass-Fed”
The majority of cattle are fed grass or other forage at some time during their lives. For the purpose of marketing, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims last year that states: “grass fed standard states that grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.”
Note that most papers in the literature do not specifically define grass-fed using this new standard or any other specific definition, but differentiate, in general, between animals on forage (grass) only verses diets containing grain.
The Study that Started the Controversy
The original study that launched the controversy over grain feeding was published in Science in 1998 by researchers from Cornell (Diez-Gonzalez et al). They described potential dietary effects on the acid resistance of E. coli in cattle fed grain- versus hay-based diets. This study has since been cited numerous times in the literature and media, but later studies have not been able to reproduce the findings. This may be due, in part, to several limitations in the original study design including: 1) small sample size and 2) “Generic” E. coli levels were measured, not E. coli O157:H7.
In 2006, Hancock and Besser wrote a summary of the evidence surrounding the hypothesis that feeding hay instead of grain would reduce the problem with E. coli O157:H7, purportedly because the stomachs of grain-fed cattle are more acidic. They concluded: “while one cannot rule out a role of cattle diet on affecting exposure and infectivity of E. coli O157:H7 to humans, the data available at present demonstrate that cattle on a wide variety of diets (including 100% forage diets) are regularly and similarly colonized with this pathogen.”
Another interesting study from a research group in The Netherlands discovered that E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella can rapidly switch from being “acid sensitive” to “acid resistant” within minutes after entering an environment with reduced pH (such as the human stomach). Thus, even if the grass-fed hypothesis were true, manipulating the diet may not have any effect since E. coli O157:H7 can adapt quickly to new environments like the human stomach.
Recent Findings in the Literature
In searching through the literature since Hancock and Besser’s review, several new papers relevant to the discussion were found.
1. Nutritional aspects of grass-fed beef.
Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.
• This paper explores the question about whether there are differences in nutrient composition of grass-fed beef compared with conventional (grain)-fed beef. Researchers have previously found higher omega-3 fatty acids and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) in forage-fed beef, and lower fat content overall. Some consumers prefer eating grass-fed meat because they believe it is “healthier,” and/or tastes better than conventional beef.
• The authors of this study enrolled only producers that were marketing grass-fed beef and confirmed that “100% of the diets were made up of native grasses, forages, or cut grasses or forages.”
• Fatty acid composition of grass-fed and conventional-fed beef was found to be different, but the authors conclude “the effects of the lipid differences between grass-fed and conventional raised beef, on human health, remains to be investigated.”
2. Papers continue to be published about possible effects of diet on E. coli O157:H7 prevalence and concentration.
For example, a research team from Kansas State University reported that feeding distillers grains, a co-product of ethanol production, to feedlot cattle may have a positive association with fecal shedding of E. coli O157. The mechanism is unknown, but they hypothesize that the grains change the ecology of the hindgut where E. coli O157 is most likely to colonize cattle. The authors report that larger studies are underway to investigate this possible link.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the scientific evidence at this time does not support a broad conclusion that grass feeding significantly reduces the risk of E. coli O157:H7 or other dangerous foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. However, more research is needed to better understand the influence of diet, especially the use of different types of grains in animal feed.
REFERENCES BELOW
1. Bach, S. J., L. J. Selinger, K. Stanford, and T. A. McAllister. 2005. Effect of supplementing corn- or barley-based feedlot diets with canola oil on faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by steers. J Appl Microbiol 98:464-75.
2. Bailey, G. D., B. A. Vanselow, M. A. Hornitzky, S. I. Hum, G. J. Eamens, P. A. Gill, K. H. Walker, and J. P. Cronin. 2003. A study of the foodborne pathogens: Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep in Australia. Commun Dis Intell 27:249-57.
3. Berg, J., T. McAllister, S. Bach, R. Stilborn, D. Hancock, and J. LeJeune. 2004. Escherichia coli O157:H7 excretion by commercial feedlot cattle fed either barley- or corn-based finishing diets. J Food Prot 67:666-71.
4. Brownlie, L. E., and F. H. Grau. 1967. Effect of food intake on growth and survival of salmonellas and Escherichia coli in the bovine rumen. J Gen Microbiol 46:125-34.
5. Buchko, S. J., R. A. Holley, W. O. Olson, V. P. Gannon, and D. M. Veira. 2000. The effect of different grain diets on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 by steers. J Food Prot 63:1467-74.
6. Callaway, T. R., R. O. Elder, J. E. Keen, R. C. Anderson, and D. J. Nisbet. 2003. Forage feeding to reduce preharvest Escherichia coli populations in cattle, a review. J Dairy Sci 86:852-60.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008. Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum from cows--California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 57:625-8.
8. Cray, W. C., Jr., T. A. Casey, B. T. Bosworth, and M. A. Rasmussen. 1998. Effect of dietary stress on fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in calves. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:1975-9.
9. de Jonge, R., K. Takumi, W. S. Ritmeester, F. M. van Leusden. 2003. The adaptive response of Escherichia coli O157 in an environment with changing pH. J Appl Microbiol. 94:555-60.
10. Depenbusch, B. E., T. G. Nagaraja, J. M. Sargeant, J. S. Drouillard, E. R. Loe, and M. E. Corrigan. 2008. Influence of processed grains on fecal pH, starch concentration, and shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:632-9.
11. Diez-Gonzalez, F., T. R. Callaway, M. G. Kizoulis, and J. B. Russell. 1998. Grain feeding and the dissemination of acid-resistant Escherichia coli from cattle. Science 281:1666-8.
12. Djordjevic, S. P., V. Ramachandran, K. A. Bettelheim, B. A. Vanselow, P. Holst, G. Bailey, and M. A. Hornitzky. 2004. Serotypes and virulence gene profiles of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli strains isolated from feces of pasture-fed and lot-fed sheep. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:3910-7.
13. Doyle, M. P., and M. C. Erickson. 2006. Reducing the carriage of foodborne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poult Sci 85:960-73.
14. Fegan, N., P. Vanderlinde, G. Higgs, and P. Desmarchelier. 2004. The prevalence and concentration of Escherichia coli O157 in faeces of cattle from different production systems at slaughter. J Appl Microbiol 97:362-70.
15. Fox, J. T., B. E. Depenbusch, J. S. Drouillard, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2007. Dry-rolled or steam-flaked grain-based diets and fecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 85:1207-12.
16. Franz, E., A. D. van Diepeningen, O. J. de Vos, and A. H. van Bruggen. 2005. Effects of cattle feeding regimen and soil management type on the fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium in manure, manure-amended soil, and lettuce. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:6165-74.
17. Fu, C. J., J. H. Porter, E. E. Felton, J. W. Lehmkuhler, and M. S. Kerley. 2003. Pre-harvest factors influencing the acid resistance of Escherichia coli and E. coli O157:H7. J Anim Sci 81:1080-7.
18. Gilbert, R. A., S. E. Denman, J. Padmanabha, N. Fegan, D. Al Ajmi, and C. S. McSweeney. 2008. Effect of diet on the concentration of complex Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and EHEC virulence genes in bovine faeces, hide and carcass. Int J Food Microbiol 121:208-16.
19. Gilbert, R. A., N. Tomkins, J. Padmanabha, J. M. Gough, D. O. Krause, and C. S. McSweeney. 2005. Effect of finishing diets on Escherichia coli populations and prevalence of enterohaemorrhagic E. coli virulence genes in cattle faeces. J Appl Microbiol 99:885-94.
20. Grauke, L. J., S. A. Wynia, H. Q. Sheng, J. W. Yoon, C. J. Williams, C. W. Hunt, and C. J. Hovde. 2003. Acid resistance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from the gastrointestinal tract of cattle fed hay or grain. Vet Microbiol 95:211-25.
21. Hancock, D. and T. Besser. 2006. E. coli O157:H7 in hay- or grain-fed cattle. Accessed at: http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/dairy/nutrient-management/data/publications/EcoliO157inhay-orgrain-fedcattleHancockandBesser1106.pdf
22. Hovde, C. J., P. R. Austin, K. A. Cloud, C. J. Williams, and C. W. Hunt. 1999. Effect of cattle diet on Escherichia coli O157:H7 acid resistance. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:3233-5.
23. Hussein, H. S. 2007. Prevalence and pathogenicity of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in beef cattle and their products. J Anim Sci 85:E63-72.
24. Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, J. S. Drouillard, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Effects of dried distillers' grain on fecal prevalence and growth of Escherichia coli O157 in batch culture fermentations from cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:38-43.
25. Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, S. K. Narayanan, J. S. Drouillard, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Effects of feeding wet corn distillers grains with solubles with or without monensin and tylosin on the prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal foodborne pathogenic and commensal bacteria in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 86:1182-90.
26. Jacob, M. E., G. L. Parsons, M. K. Shelor, J. T. Fox, J. S. Drouillard, D. U. Thomson, D. G. Renter, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Feeding supplemental dried distiller's grains increases faecal shedding of Escherichia coli O157 in experimentally inoculated calves. Zoonoses Public Health 55:125-32.
27. Jay, M. T., M. Cooley, D. Carychao, G. W. Wiscomb, R. A. Sweitzer, L. Crawford-Miksza, J. A. Farrar, D. K. Lau, J. O'Connell, A. Millington, R. V. Asmundson, E. R. Atwill, and R. E. Mandrell. 2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California coast. Emerg Infect Dis 13:1908-11.
28. Krueger, N. A., R. C. Anderson, W. K. Krueger, W. J. Horne, I. V. Wesley, T. R. Callaway, T. S. Edrington, G. E. Carstens, R. B. Harvey, and D. J. Nisbet. 2008. Prevalence and Concentration of Campylobacter in Rumen Contents and Feces in Pasture and Feedlot-Fed Cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis.
29. Kudva, I. T., P. G. Hatfield, and C. J. Hovde. 1995. Effect of diet on the shedding of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a sheep model. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:1363-70.
30. Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.
31. Looper, M. L., T. S. Edrington, R. Flores, J. M. Burke, T. R. Callaway, G. E. Aiken, F. N. Schrick, and C. F. Rosenkrans, Jr. 2007. Influence of dietary endophyte (Neotyphodium coenophialum)-infected tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) seed on fecal shedding of antibiotic resistance-selected Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ewes. J Anim Sci 85:1102-8.
32. Looper, M. L., T. S. Edrington, R. Flores, C. F. Rosenkrans, Jr., M. E. Nihsen, and G. E. Aiken. 2006. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in beef steers consuming different forage diets. Lett Appl Microbiol 42:583-8.
33. Oliver, S. P., D. A. Patel, T. R. Callaway, and M. E. Torrence. 2008. ASAS Centennial Paper: Developments and future outlook for preharvest food safety. J Anim Sci.
34. Renter, D. G., J. M. Sargeant, and L. L. Hungerford. 2004. Distribution of Escherichia coli O157:H7 within and among cattle operations in pasture-based agricultural areas. Am J Vet Res 65:1367-76.
35. Renter, D. G., J. M. Sargeant, R. D. Oberst, and M. Samadpour. 2003. Diversity, frequency, and persistence of Escherichia coli O157 strains from range cattle environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:542-7.
36. Russell, J. B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis. 2000. Invited review: effects of diet shifts on Escherichia coli in cattle. J Dairy Sci 83:863-73.
37. Russell, J. B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis. 2000. Potential effect of cattle diets on the transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans. Microbes Infect 2:45-53.
38. Sargeant, J. M., J. R. Gillespie, R. D. Oberst, R. K. Phebus, D. R. Hyatt, L. K. Bohra, and J. C. Galland. 2000. Results of a longitudinal study of the prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on cow-calf farms. Am J Vet Res 61:1375-9.
39. Tkalcic, S., C. A. Brown, B. G. Harmon, A. V. Jain, E. P. Mueller, A. Parks, K. L. Jacobsen, S. A. Martin, T. Zhao, and M. P. Doyle. 2000. Effects of diet on rumen proliferation and fecal shedding of Escherichia coil O157:H7 in calves. J Food Prot 63:1630-6.
40. Van Baale, M. J., J. M. Sargeant, D. P. Gnad, B. M. DeBey, K. F. Lechtenberg, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2004. Effect of forage or grain diets with or without monensin on ruminal persistence and fecal Escherichia coli O157:H7 in cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:5336-42.
Nothing less than the complete and permanent end of cattle ranching on public lands.
However, at least you flirt with these facts:
-We eat too way more than our share of red meat, to the detriment of ouselves and our world
-Factory farming is dispicable in many ways, and we need a better alternative
-Grass fed beef that truly is grass fed, though it is not the answer, is a small part of the solution
And I'm also with Tim Lengerich: "Nothing less than the complete and permanent end of cattle ranching on public lands." It sounds like, surely, that is your position as well.
Grass fed is not part of the answer. That is like saying that burning low sulphur coal is the way to deal with air pollution compared to high sulphur coal. Burning coal is bad news--and the less of it we burn, the better. The less beef we eat the better.
I don't start with the assumption that we "need" to eat beef. If that is the starting point, than perhaps you're correct. But there are plenty of other alternatives, just as there are alternatives to burning coal if we put our minds to it.
For some reason, discussions of overpopulation, and what to do about it, have been completely scrubbed from most environmental conversations. And you certainly don't hear any enviro org's talking about it anymore. I realize the reasons behind this - it's a very touchy and difficult subject for a lot of people. But it's the elephant in the room in terms of all of our environmental problems, and we would do well to face that fact, instead of getting hung up on what are ultimately trivialities such as, "paper or plastic?" "grass-fed or grain?"
You're absolutely correct about population growth. No matter what is done to increase efficiency, promote conservation, etc. it's all for naught if population continues to grow. Most people are not going to ratchet down their life styles and there's a lot of poor people who want to improve their own lives, and who can blame them. So that doesn't leave very many options other than a gradual population reduction. There is substitution, new technologies, and so forth, that may delay the day of reckoning but in the end, they can't make a finite world, infinite.
Reduce meat consumption - do we really, seriously, need to be consuming so much meat? So much low-quality, hormone-laden mystery meat?
End factory farming. Just because we CAN raise animals for slaughter in massive numbers doesn't mean it's right.
Grass-fed cattle in numbers that won't harm the environment and guess what, this meat will be taxed. And that's right, not everyone will be able to eat meat. It's time people monetarily pay for the cost of being environmentally reckless.
This is an excellent article and thank you very much for writing it.
Smithhammer - you are 100% correct about the need to discuss overpopulation in the world.
If you enjoy beef, try both grass and grain fed. Eat your preference. If you are a vegan, enjoy that. Just a thought, if there were 100,000,000 buffalo in pioneer days, how much gas did they release into the atmosphere?
The difference is there were not 7 Billion People in the world devouring unlimited amounts of meat. We live in a very different world where human population has exploded and continues to exponentially expand thereby destroying the natural world.
We simply can not think or eat the same as we did with millions not billions of people on the planet who eat as if there is unlimited resources and as if animals are not sentient beings but are rather commodities to be enslaved for human progress.
Humanity needs to wake up to a higher consciousness and consider this planet as a whole organism.
Bill's posting about E 157 is kind of interesting, but so what? COOK your supper and you'll be fine. If it scares you, don't buy it, don't cook it, and hope your raw veggies aren't fertilized organically, right? Or maybe grow and slaughter your own darn cow?
Wonders never cease.
First, many grass-fed beef proponents do support the removal of cattle from public lands, and many of us are supporters of the return of bison on a large scale to the Great Plains. Provided they are stocked at appropriate levels, bison have actually been shown to *improve* range land and habitat quality.
Second, you're overlooking the importance of perennial grasslands for carbon sequestration. When you're calculating the carbon footprint of grain fed cattle, you need to calculate not only the methane they produce, but also the carbon that goes into manufacturing and transporting the fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that go into producing the grain, the carbon released by tilling, the carbon used to transport the grain to the cows, and more. Pastures require significantly fewer chemical inputs, if any, are rarely or never tilled, and don't require any transport to get the grass from the field to the cow. Additionally, perennial grasslands are arguably the best carbon sequestration ecosystems in the world. Trees absorb more, but they are carbon-neutral over their lifetimes, while grasses store the carbon in the soil, where it can only be released by tilling. I have yet to see a feedlot or factory farm with enough green to sequester anything.
Finally, grass fed beef is more expensive than grain fed beef, so encouraging families to switch to grass fed beef by definition encourages them to eat less beef. I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that we can sustain our current level of meat consumption by switching to grass-fed instead of grain-fed meat, or that it would be a good thing if we did. Grass fed proponents tend to value quality over quantity.
You think eating vegetable foods doesn't destroy animal habitats, doesn't damage our environment? You think people don't need to eat at least some form of animal-based foods to be healthy? Think again. We evolved eating animal-based foods, in addition to plant-based foods. We need animal foods to be truly healthy.
Anybody here taken the time to read Lierre Keith's new book, The Vegetarian Myth? Powerful, mind-blowing stuff for those who are prejudiced against eating animal foods. And right on!
And as for the question of overpopulation, is anybody on this list volunteering to give up his or her life, or voluntarily having no children? This is not an easy question!!
As far as eating animal-based foods, avoiding beef, particularly if it comes from the arid lands of the west, is highly advisable. But eating far more vegetables and fruits and far less meat would serve us better. Billions of people eat very little or no beef. It is far healthier for the planet.
I know scores of people who purposely and happily choose not to have children; myself included. It is a great way to honor the earth. Choosing adoption is a wonderful option as well.
Google the documentries Earthlings, Food, Inc., The Cove and Pig Business, just to name a few "time to wake up people" films out there dedicated to what's really happening in the "food processing" industry here and in other countries by a very few, powerful corporations, who are now, pretty much in control of most of the food WE consume.
They don't give a crap about the health of humans (look at all the recalls over the past few years) let alone the humane treatment of the animals that spend weeks sitting in filth and then rushed thru their slaughterhouses at an alarming rate, some "not quite dead yet" and suffering, as they dangle by a leg, awaiting the next step of the process.
I would like to ask for your help. I want to learn more about this issue. If anyone has some research/evidence about grass-fed beef, I would appreciate it.
I want to get to the bottom of this, and not just hear opinion. Most of what I can find written on this subject seems to be based on studies/research purposely hidden.
Again, thank you to everyone who wrote their ideas.
Sincerely Garrett
I hope he got paid plenty from the factory farm corporations to write this drivel because the only part of it that is anywhere near the truth is possibly his name (unless he had enough self respect to use a false one). Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver George or whatever your name is
So when I say that you are only a little correct I am simply saying that the idiots of the world that are killing the world anyway are eating corn fed beef.
Think!
I think Kerry has got the right idea. Grass fed is better. However current levels of consumption are way too high, no doubt.
Noting that beef is bad for you is utter nonsense in that you have not accounted for the differences between people. Statistically only 10-15% of cardiac patients benefit from a change in diet away from red meat and fats. The rest are induced by stress and being overweight leading too fatty acids being released into the blood from the fat deposits in the now overweight stomach. Stress comes from a multitude of things like fructose problems, nitric oxide imbalance, many things.
However what is fascinating is that if statistically the average American eats around 200lbs of meat a year, that is oh say 60,000,000,000 lbs a year. Now lets apply some science that you say we are unaware of....
Around 46% of people have the A antigen in their blood. All of them that secrete their antigen suffer from a lack of intestinal alkaline phosphate. Lets give them an allotment of 1lb per week total meat including poultry and fish which lack the saturated fat associated with heart risk. (IAP digests saturated fat in the intestines, so if you can not digest it there it goes into the blood and becomes the problem known as high cholesterol). That is about 52lbs a year, and given that people may eat less than a lb a week on occasion, and children may eat less, lets give it a 46lb a year (because it is funny too). 46% of the population is 138,000,000, times 46lbs is 6,348,000,000. Next we have 54% of the population left. Lets give them 2.5lbs a week, or 130lbs a year. We get about 21,060,000,000 lbs. So now with generous amounts of meat in every persons diet adjust for who can benefit from it, we now have 27,408,000,000 lbs a year. That is over half the amount currently being consumed. Oh and a lot gets wasted currently. We could, with science, reduce meat consumption appropriately by at least 54.3%, if not closer to 60% estimated by current waste production - or more.
Plus we could consume a lot more lamb and bison. Lamb's impact is much less than beef or bison. It takes one person to raise an army of lamb. It takes an army to raise an army of beef.
Science rocks, indeed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16412386
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
(there is extensive amount of information about the ABO blood group and response to food all over pubmed, books, etc, but it get called suedo-science due to lack of money involved in healthy people, and genetic qualities that override some of the research in small amounts)