Is Ground Beef Strictly From the Cow
58,383 Readers
Is Grass-Fed Beef Good for Your Health & the Planet?
Cattle (like sheep, deer, and other grazing animals) are endowed with the ability to convert grasses, which we humans cannot digest, into flesh that we are able to assimilate. They can practise this because, different humans, who possess but one breadbasket, they are ruminants, which is to say that they possess a rumen, a 45-or-so gallon fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into poly peptide and fats.
In the Usa, nonetheless, nearly 97% of the cattle raised for beef spend the latter portion of their lives in feedlots, where they're fed corn and other grains that humans could swallow — and they convert it into meat quite inefficiently. Since it takes anywhere from, depending on who is doing the calculation and what they include, four to (according to some estimates) as many as 20 pounds of grain to make a pound of feedlot-derived beefiness, we actually go far less food out than nosotros put in. What we've created is finer a protein manufactory in opposite.
And we practice this on a massive calibration, while near 2.5 billion people on our planet are experiencing some level of hunger.
Simply industrialized beef is facing criticism from a growing body of leaders. The United nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is calling for humanity to swallow less meat in society to help the states save the planet. Organizations like the American Heart Association and the National Cancer Institute are urging consumers to eat less (or no) red meat in social club to help fight heart affliction and cancer. And fifty-fifty superstar entertainers similar Beyoncé and Jay-Z have been getting in on the action, offer free concert tickets to fans willing to commit to a plant-based diet.
The Rising of Grass-Fed Beef
Despite the calls for consumers to swallow less meat in society to fight ecology problems like climate change — likewise equally research showing that red meat isn't doing your health whatsoever favors — beef consumption in the US has recently been on the rise. This is partly fueled by quickly expanding sales of grass-fed beefiness.
Advocates for grass-fed beefiness say it has health and environmental benefits compared to conventionally-raised beef. Marketers and enthusiasts praise it as a healthy nutrient rich in protein, B vitamins, iron, and other nutrients. And some environmentalists gush over the theory that properly managed grass-fed beefiness could help sequester carbon in the ground, building topsoil and fighting climatic change at the same time.
And consumers are responding. The grass-fed beef marketplace has emerged as a multi-billion dollar industry that shows no sign of slowing downward. In fact, the market for grass-fed beef is predicted to grow past $xiv.5 billion between 2020 and 2024.
But is there truth backside these behavior almost grass-fed beef, or is this just a bunch of hearsay by environmentally conflicted burger-lovers trying to justify their meat habit? Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animals, or the environment? And if it is, does that mean yous should consume it?
What Is Grass-Fed Beef?
Completely grass-fed beef was the norm in the beef industry earlier the 1950s. Cattle got to live longer back and then, sometimes reaching their tertiary birthdays. In the middle of the 20th century, as the popularity of hamburgers and fast nutrient in the US grew, farmers and ranchers needed a manner to fatten up cattle faster, so they started feeding them energy-dense grain and soy instead.
Today, most cattle in the United States commencement out eating grass, but are fattened — or what the manufacture euphemistically calls "finished" — on grain and soy for their concluding 160-180 days of life. (While this accounts for barely a third of their lifespan, more than 50% of their weight gain occurs during this last one-half-twelvemonth.) Cattle who are fattened upwardly in CAFOs reach their slaughter weight in equally little as xiv months.
Grass-fed cattle, on the other paw, feed on grass and other provender for their entire lives. Since the grass they consume is much less calorie-dense than feedlot grain, they're sent to slaughter after — usually between one and a one-half and ii years one-time. Their average weight at slaughter is about 1,200 pounds, compared with about i,350 pounds for feedlot cattle.
So grass-fed cattle live longer and yield less edible meat than their grain-fed counterparts.
Is Grass-Fed Beefiness Improve than Conventional Beefiness?
Despite all the claims that grass-fed beef is better than conventional beef, what does the research actually prove united states? Allow'southward take a expect at the three main areas where grass-fed beef is said to be a better pick: diet, the environment, and the handling of animals.
Grass-Fed Beef Nutrition
Grass-fed beefiness is marketed to consumers as being nutritionally-superior to conventional beef. And it is. But that's not a very high bar. When compared on a per calorie basis, grass-fed beef is college in B vitamins, iron, phosphorus, zinc, selenium, and vitamins A and E (information technology's also touted every bit existence higher in omega-3 fatty acids, merely the truth is it all the same has only a negligible amount of them). Plus, it'south lower in saturated fat.
So grass-fed beef is more nutritious than conventional grain-fed beef. But that doesn't exactly brand it a "health nutrient." Overall, it'south yet loftier in saturated fat, which is linked to an increased run a risk of middle disease, type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer'southward affliction. And then there's cancer. Cherry-red meat of all kinds, including grass-fed beef, is labeled a class 2A carcinogen by the World Health Organization, meaning that it'due south "probably cancer-causing" to humans.
Recent enquiry also suggests that red meat, grass-fed or not, promotes the body's production of a compound chosen TMAO, which tin can contribute to heart disease and other chronic lifestyle diseases. And all red meat can be a nasty vector for the spread of pathogenic bacteria, which can sneak into meat during processing, grinding, and packaging and cause foodborne affliction. While the risk of unsafe bacterial contamination from grass-fed beef is lower, it's certainly not nil.
On the whole, ruby meat consumption is associated with higher overall mortality rates. This means that in study after study, the more red meat people eat, the sooner they dice.
Grass-fed beef is clearly a nutritional improvement over conventional grain-finished beef. But we don't accept any studies that accept demonstrated positive health effects from eating it over time. And we know that, similar grain-fed beefiness, it's still high in saturated fatty. It notwithstanding contributes to your product of cancer-causing TMAO. And it'southward still utterly devoid of fiber (a disquisitional gut-health nutrient that less than 5% of us are getting enough of).
Grass-Fed Beef & the Environs
Grass-fed beef advocates claim that information technology's meliorate for the surroundings than traditional beefiness. But that, in and of itself, is not saying much. After all, conventional beef production is nothing short of an ecology disaster.
Problems with the Cattle Industry
At least one-tertiary of the earth's arable country is used to raise livestock. And new areas are constantly being cleared through deforestation to make more room — nigh alarmingly in the precious and irreplaceable Amazon rainforest. Beef cattle production contributes an enormous amount of greenhouse gas emissions, including marsh gas, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. In fact, according to a United nations Food and Agronomics Organization report, cattle impact our global climate more than all of the world's cars, planes, trucks, trains, and ships combined.
Cattle eat plants, which is where they receive the nutrients that they capture in their flesh. Just they also plow those plants they consume into hoof, hide, bones, free energy, methane, and manure — lots and lots of manure. Subsequently cattle come up into a feedlot, they gain plenty weight to produce virtually (according to my estimation) one new pound of beefiness for every 12 pounds of feed input. The other 11 are essentially wasted.
A 2011 assay by the Ecology Working Group looked at the carbon footprint of diverse foods over their unabridged life-cycle, including the raw materials that go into them. In other words, in totality, how much do dissimilar foods contribute to climate alter?
They concluded that beef production emits about ten times more than greenhouse gases per pound of meat than chickens or pigs, which themselves emit about 10 times more legumes. This means that a pound of beefiness is responsible for 100 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a pound of beans.
And so there's water. Some experts estimate that it takes more than than one,800 gallons of water to produce a pound of conventionally raised beef. In total, the livestock sector uses at least eight% of the world's clean, fresh water supply while polluting much of the rest.
Is Grass-Fed Beef Any Different?
Proponents of grass-fed beef tell us that, dissimilar conventional beef, grass-fed beef can be raised in a way that is actually practiced for the planet. They fence that information technology improves soil with organic affair and benefits carbon sequestration and that it restores natural ecosystems and wild animals habitat, increases biodiversity, reduces our reliance on petrochemicals, improves water quality, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide. That all sounds good, but is it actually truthful?
Carbon Sequestration
The earth has lost enormous reserves of soil carbon over the years, as humans have converted forests and grasslands into state for crops and grazing cattle. The idea of soil carbon sequestration is that the carbon previously lost from soil could be returned to it via practices that restore degraded soils and conserve existing soil in a soil carbon pool. There are several possible means to do this, one of which is called carbon farming. In this process, farmers utilise plants to trap carbon dioxide, and so utilise strategic practices to trap carbon in the basis — like planting long-rooted crops, incorporating organic materials in the soil, and tilling the land less ofttimes.
Some other arroyo is rotational grazing. According to Successful Farming: "Rotational grazing involves controlling livestock'southward admission to pastures, assuasive animals to graze in designated paddocks for limited periods of time. The livestock are rotated to fresh pasture before they graze the grass downward to the footing. This provides the grazed pastures with aplenty time to rest and so that the leaf matter tin can regrow. The more than leaf matter a institute has, the more sunlight it can process through photosynthesis and the longer its roots will exist. These root systems are key to maintaining good for you soils."
Attaining Carbon Neutrality
A 2018 study published in Agronomical Systems, which was conducted by Michigan State Academy researchers and the Marriage of Concerned Scientists, suggested that the finishing phase of grass-fed cattle could be managed in a manner that makes them strongly carbon-negative in the first few years. Over time, however, the buildup of carbon in the soil decreases, and the net impact of fifty-fifty well managed grass-fed herds becomes simply carbon neutral. In conclusion, the researchers stated, "… the path to a climate-friendly, scientific discipline-based, ethically consistent, and practically achievable decision on beef production and consumption remains about every bit clear as the mud in a herd-trampled pasture."
Considering the devastating ecology consequences that accompany conventional modern beef production, information technology's heartening to hear that it might be possible, with well managed grass-fed herds, to attain carbon neutrality in the long run.
Just although that could be an of import pace in the right direction, is information technology really a reason to chow downwardly on beef? Near 60% of the earth's agricultural state is used for beef product. And all that land yields less than 2% of humanity'due south calories. What else could be done with that state that might more effectively regenerate soil and sequester carbon? What if we used it to grow cover crops? Or used it to grow trees? It turns out, at that place are many ways we can apply land to capture carbon far more than effectively than rotational grazing. If you lot want some serious carbon-sequestration hope, bank check out the viii solutions in this article. (Spoiler alert: the word "beef" does not appear.)
The Residue of The Environmental Picture show
In some ways, grass-fed beef might actually be worse for the planet than feedlot beef. The biggest reason for this is that grass-fed cattle take longer to fatten up, so they live an boilerplate of eighteen-24 months, whereas feedlot cattle are typically killed at around xv months. This extra longevity necessitates more cattle roaming around — and more land on which to abound their (grass) food. If we moved all cattle out of feedlots, and nosotros didn't reduce our beefiness consumption dramatically, we'd find ourselves with a severe shortage of grazing state. According to a 2012 study published in the journal Animals, if all the US beefiness produced in 2010 were grass-fed, the industry would have required an additional 200,000 square miles — an area larger than all the land in u.s. of New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio combined. Of course, we'd free up some of the state currently growing corn, soy, and other feedstuffs for cattle feed. But non near enough to provide for all those cows roaming effectually for all those boosted months.
Amazonian Deforestation
For a look at the worst possible environmental bear upon of large-calibration, grass-fed beef production, we demand look no further than Brazil, where an environmental nightmare of epic proportions is unfolding. In 2009, Greenpeace released a report titled "Slaughtering the Amazon," which presented detailed satellite photos showing that Amazon cattle were the biggest unmarried crusade of global deforestation. And in turn, are responsible for 20% of the globe'due south greenhouse gases.
Since and so, the situation in Brazil has only gotten worse. Even Brazil'south government, whose policies have fabricated the nation the world'south largest beefiness exporter, and abode to the planet's largest commercial cattle herd, acknowledges that cattle ranching is responsible for 80% of Amazonian deforestation. Much of the remaining 20% is for land to abound soy, which is non used to brand tofu. Almost is sold to Communist china to feed livestock.
Amazonian cattle are gratuitous-range, grass-fed, and mayhap organic, merely they are still a plague on the planet and a driving force behind global warming.
Although well-managed grass-fed cattle might exist able to sequester carbon in the soil, and they tin be raised on natural grassland instead of freshly destroyed rainforest, they nonetheless contribute to climate change in other ways. The greenhouse gas methane, which cattle produce in staggering amounts, is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a hundred-year time frame. With the higher fiber content in grasses than grains, cattle may produce even more methane than grain-fed ones. And with grass-fed cattle living upwards to twice equally long as feedlot cattle, they produce methane for longer, too.
Is Grass-Fed Beef Better for Cows?
Grass-fed beef appeals to consumers who are told that it's better for the animals. But is this accurate?
In some big means, yep. They're healthier, and almost certainly happier, than conventional cattle. Again though, that's a low bar.
Feedlots such as California's Harris Ranch routinely cram up to 100,000 cattle into ane square mile. Merely the cows aren't potty trained, and they don't pay for sewer hookups, either. And so they live their entire lives in a mess of their ain excrement.
Feeding cattle grain in feedlots can cause health problems, too, including liver abscesses, which is one of the reasons that grain-fed cattle are typically given antibiotics right in their feed.
Author Michael Pollan describes what happens to cattle when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed corn:
"Perhaps the almost serious thing that can become wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is ever producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the nutrition contains as well much starch and too niggling roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that tin can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing confronting the beast'due south lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the beast's esophagus), the cow suffocates."
Feedlot beef as nosotros know it today would be impossible if it weren't for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These new "superbugs" are increasingly rendering our antibiotics ineffective for treating illness in humans.
In comparing, cattle experience greater well-existence and meliorate health when they're able to eat the diet for which their digestive systems were designed, and when they have access to more than outdoor space.
While it'south certainly true that grass-fed cattle alive significantly better lives than their feedlot counterparts, there's still nil cheery most their deaths. According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, many cows are live and conscious for as long as seven minutes after their throats are cut. And some have their legs cut off while notwithstanding animate.
What Grass-Fed and Organic Beef Labels Actually Mean
Grass-fed and organic beef attract premium prices. (In more layman'due south terms: They're expensive.) But the significant of the terms is poorly regulated and ofttimes misunderstood. Technically grass-fed should mean that the cattle lived its entire life on pasture, without confinement, eating grass. But keep in mind that well-nigh cattle are grass-fed for at least part of their lives until they counterbalance 600 to 800 pounds, at which bespeak they are shipped off to a feedlot for fattening.
And the United states of america authorities isn't of much help hither, either. Starting in 2016, the USDA dropped regulatory command of the term altogether. So some products might be deceptively (even so legally) sold as "grass-fed" beef, fifty-fifty if cattle lived a portion of their lives cooped up in feedlots, eating grain and soybeans.
Consumers who care about this critical distinction demand to make sure they're getting 100% grass-fed beefiness, which is sometimes called "grass-finished beef."
The USDA organic certification guarantees that the animals were raised on pesticide-free food, and were never given hormones or antibiotics. Simply beef labeled "organic" can however come from animals that were cooped upward in feedlots and fed grain and soy for the latter office of their lives.
Anyone looking for truly organic, 100% grass-fed meat needs to wait advisedly at what they're actually getting.
The American Grassfed Association (AGA), which advocates for grass-fed producers and offers a certification program for cattle farmers, assures that beef bearing its seal comes from cattle raised on a 100% grass-fed nutrition. And they add further specifications, too, including that the cattle are raised by family farmers, on pastures without confinement, and are never fed antibiotics or hormones. There appears to be a few hundred fellow member farms across the US that currently conduct the AGA certification.
There are other certifying bodies, besides, including the Food Alliance Grass-Fed Certification, and the USDA'south Small & Very Small Producer Programme.
Grass-Fed Beefiness: Amend, Simply Non Best
Conventional feedlot-finished beefiness is goose egg brusk of a wellness, environmental, and upstanding disaster. And grass-fed beef is arguably better on all 3 fronts. So if you're going to eat beef, then there are proficient reasons to choose grass-fed and organic beefiness over the products of feedlots.
But if you desire to save money, and practise a adept plough for your health, the planet, and the animals, at that place are enough of plant-based options to choose from. (For our article on how to get rolling on a whole-foods, plant-powered nutrition, click here.)
At that place are also plant-based meats, of grade. But don't forget about beans. If the whole world started swapping beans for beef, we could accept a huge bite out of climate change. We could salve what's left of the Amazon rainforest. We could spare the lives of tens of millions of cattle. We could restore the fertility of our soils. And we could prevent countless heart attacks, too.
Tell us in the comments:
- Exercise you eat grass-fed beef? Why or why non?
- Do you call back that grass-fed beefiness can be function of the climate change solution?
- What are some of your favorite beef-free food alternatives?
Feature paradigm: iStock.com/adamkaz
Read Adjacent:
- Veggie Burgers and Establish-Based Meat: Pros and Cons
- What'due south All Wrong About Register Of Internal Medicine's Carmine and Processed Meat Advice
Source: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/grass-fed-beef-2021-update/
0 Response to "Is Ground Beef Strictly From the Cow"
Post a Comment