Danger of Hormone implants-Bloomberg report

Help Support CattleToday:

OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
AngusLimoX":11cw2008 said:
Recent News Release!
Who funded the shoddy research you are quoting?

The on-line article that I read was on Bloomberg. Here's
part of it, in case you missed it:

"The concentration of sperm in the semen of men whose mothers ate beef more than seven times a week was 24 percent lower than men whose mothers ate less, said researchers led by Shanna Swan, director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester in New York.

Men with low sperm counts were three times more likely to have mothers who ate red meat more than seven times a week, the study found. The findings may be the ``tip of the iceberg'' of revelations showing the impact of hormone use among animals, said Frederick vom Saal, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri.

``The risks associated with exposure during development to hormonal residues in beef should be revisited'' by regulators, vom Saal wrote in a commentary accompanying the study, which was published on line today in the journal Human Reproduction.
"
---------------------

It doesn't really say who funded the study - just where it
was done and where it was published. Human Reproduction
is a scientific journal, not a newspaper.

I would not be surprised if someone connected with the EU
funded the study---as per my previous comments regarding
their attempt to get out of WTO sanctions for refusing
hormone fed beef. I don't know if the research was shoddy
or not.

What I do believe is that successful marketing involves providing a product that the customer
wants---I think it's a waste of time to try to force people
to buy something they do not want...for whatever reason.
Henry Ford's position(you can have whatever color vehicle
you want--as long as it's black) didn't last very long after
some competition entered the market. Maybe it's human
nature for people to resent anyone doing business in a
way that is different than what they are doing---but isn't
that what "niche" marketing is all about? I certainly don't
think non-hormone, antibiotic-free beef cattle will intrude
on the present industrial model of beef production;
nothing for you to worry about AngusLimoX!!
 

AngusLimoX

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canuckleland
OK Jeanne":6f5jl8cz said:
I certainly don't
think non-hormone, antibiotic-free beef cattle will intrude
on the present industrial model of beef production;
nothing for you to worry about AngusLimoX!!

It already has intruded on the conventional beef industry Jeanne.

Should we follow consumer attitudes which are influenced by lies. I wish I had eaten eggs all those years I was scared off them by the "experts" and "studies".

Do you honestly think it doesn't matter who funded the research??

This kind of propoganda disguised as research doesn't help your beef sales as much as it hurts ALL beef sales.

( I don't implant and usually get vet direction before using antibiotics. That reminds me, gotta go dust off the LA300 and check expiry date ).
 

Jeanne - Simme Valley

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
12,407
Reaction score
1,365
Location
Central Upstate New York
OK Jeanne - I did not and would not imply that you shouldn't advertise & sell your beef as natural, local, non-implanted, blah blah. We all do whatever we need to do to make our cattle worth money.
All I'm saying is all the information given to the general public about GERMS, hormones, antibiotics, grain, etc is a way to put fear into people so they won't buy certain things.
I do believe ORGANIC is "hogwash" (I like that term :p )
"Fresh", and "Local" to me should be important to a consumer - not that it would be better - but it would be supporting their community.
 

SCRUBS620

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
I luv herfrds":3kbepzhv said:
1848 I ain't touching that one! :shock: :lol:
There was a tidbit awhile back about men who eat a total vegan diet also had a low sperm count.
So can these so called experts make up their minds.

I just read a report that there is something in plastics that is a big contributer to low sperm counts. I am sorry I forgot the name of the chemical, Ill have to look it up agian. Statistics are great if they are used correctly but they can be manipulated so many ways to fit what the researchers want. Unless these articles are peer reviewed I place little faith in them.
 

phillse

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
AL
When working on my Master's Thesis in Agronomy @ Auburn, the only way i could say something did something was if it had a p value <0.05, one can hint at there being a trend but unless p<0.05 one can not conclude cause and effect. I often see research reported in magazines and else where where the p value is >0.05, manytimes the p value =0.12 or such could that mean there might be a problem, Yes but it also means that other factors could have impacted the study and that more research needs to be done.

When taking statistics, the professor said the 1st thing to look at when doing research is to look at who funded the research and to try if at all possible to have the results come out to the liking of the fender.

Does this mean all research is useless, No. What it does mean is that some people have higher moral and ethical standards than others and can not be persuaded to use bad science or to publish results in which p>0.05. Others however, are what is refered to as research whores who will publish anything to continue getting funding, or will publish anything to advance a personal agenda.

My questions are does bloomberg have an agenda against beef, who funded his research, what materials and methods did he apply in aquaring his data, what statistical analaysist method did he use, and what is the p value for the study.

Good responsible scientific research with good sound statistical analysis is a great tool. However, anyone can publish it is just a matter of where. Some journals have strict requirment to publish research and others don't so check the source of the research.
 
OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
phillse":19yyeqsc said:
My questions are does bloomberg have an agenda against beef, who funded his research, what materials and methods did he apply in aquaring his data, what statistical analaysist method did he use, and what is the p value for the study.

"Bloomberg" is just a news reporting company - they focus
on financial news as a rule. link:\

http://www.bloomberg.com/index.html?Intro=intro3

I would have identified the source, but thought it was
a familiar name...sorry about that. You probably noted
that the story itself cited its source....right?
 

phillse

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
AL
Since Bloomberg is "just a news reporting company" i would be have to read the fine print on the study before putting any stock in the report. I have seen U.S.A. Today run stories that were hogwash. Most news companies focus on the sensational and contreversial, not to mention most of them are all tree hugging anti agriculture.

If I could not find the story research in a reputabale journal than i would not waste my time contemplating it. Also, there are swome organizations that produce Journals that appear to be reputable but have agenda.

A prime example of statistics saying what you want is a few years ago there was a study done on crime in a major city ( sorry but can't remeber which city) one report talked about how much crime had increased, they cited x amount of crimes more than 10 yrs ago. Another sory using the same data was released saying how crime had gone down, it had analysed the data on #of crimes per capita.
It shows you that if you crunch the numbers long enough and try enough different analysis methods you can find something.
 

Latest posts

Top