Grass-fed -- a new post

[john250]

Frankie it's easy for Ed to say grass fed is 6 times better for you....

...because Ed considers his opinions to be fact. And gets a bit touchy if anyone disputes him.

Don't tell me how good it is Ed....send me a package of ribeyes.

Hey, me too.
TB, from what I hear that package of ribeyes will cure whatever you have and prevent whatever you don't have (yet) after eating all of that nasty corn fed.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Texas bred them steaks won't work for you, you been eating them no marbling Limis to long. :lol: :lol:

 

[gberry]

Or just maybe he made the whole thing up? We're not at a university; we're on an internet discussion board. If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to post a link to back it up. He doesn't and can't because there's no USDA report that says grassfed beef is 6 times as healthy as conventional beef. Notice that he's left this dicussion?

I don't care too much about this discussion one way or the other, but since when is all legitimate research accessible by a link online? This is ridiculous. The vast majority of medical literature cannot be accessed directly from a link and I'm sure the same is true of a large portion of animal science literature. Not to mention that one of the articles he mentioned is stated to be published online. If you really wanted to have a discussion, you could at least read that article.

 

[TexasBred]

Texas bred them steaks won't work for you, you been eating them no marbling Limis to long. :lol: :lol:

Well shoot RBB....I forgot all about that good limi meet I been eating the last year. But it was grain fed. Just doesn't carry much fat. God that stuff is good. (And I ain't jokin).

www.brehmfarms.com

Good lean limi beef. Delivered to your grill. :cowboy:

 

[dieselbeef]

ill sell ya all ya want for 3$ lb...you pay the shipping

 

[edrsimms]

Or just maybe he made the whole thing up? We're not at a university; we're on an internet discussion board. If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to post a link to back it up. He doesn't and can't because there's no USDA report that says grassfed beef is 6 times as healthy as conventional beef. Notice that he's left this dicussion?

I don't care too much about this discussion one way or the other, but since when is all legitimate research accessible by a link online? This is ridiculous. The vast majority of medical literature cannot be accessed directly from a link and I'm sure the same is true of a large portion of animal science literature. Not to mention that one of the articles he mentioned is stated to be published online. If you really wanted to have a discussion, you could at least read that article.

Yes, good point gberry-- at least they could have read the article online-- it is available

 

[TexasBred]

Gberry we can read til he1 freezes over, it does not mean that we all understand what is written....good examples are being submitted by congress right now. Also not all research is 100% unbiased as someone pays for Joe Blow to do this research and he usually finds what he's told to find. You can write a thesis anytime, but it does not mean it is necessarily correct. You simply reached a conclusion based on what your experimentation showed and how you interpreted the data.

Ed ignored my posts about the omega 3's he's bragging about so much so I'll post a portion of it again. Give him another chance to instruct the unlearned. :lol2: :lol2:

The absolute amount of omega-3 fatty acids derived from beef is just too small, regardless of whether it is grass or grain-fed. A one pound steak only has between 70-225 mg of omega-3 fatty acids (most of which isn't the more beneficial marine omega-3s, EPA and DHA). Compare this to the amount of omega-3s you get from either wild-caught or farmed salmon. So while it's true that the omega-6mega-3 ratios are lower for grass-fed beef, a look at the absolute masses of the separate fatty acid classes suggests that this isn't really practically relevant. Now don't get me wrong, there are many other benefits of grass-fed beef. If money weren't a constraint, I would eat it all the time. However, I don't think that the omega-3 content of beef should be a factor when deciding whether to buy grass-fed over grain-fed. If you want to improve your omega-6mega-3 dietary ratio, you would do better to eat more seafood and reduce your intake of vegetable oils.

 

[edrsimms]

I didnt ignore your post on OM 3's, but my research based info is the most up to date (June 2009) and just as in any research based literature your post while informative, interesting and relevant is now pas-se (out of date).
Ed

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

A Postscript to resource "links":

Scientific and academic research is written and published in professional journals. Books contain references to journal articles, professional papers, books, etc. In the publishing realm, reference citations are in printed media, not internet links. Any more, the vast majority of citations within text are written as "Jones, I.T. (2009)". At the end of the work, the full reference is cited in in alphabetical order of principal writer. [It is antiquated to list references at the bottom of a page in such formats as "Ibid", "Op Cit", "Loc Cit", etc.].

"Credibility" of any given article is based on the author's credentials, professional affiliation, track record, etc. Readers that wish top "verify" what the author said always has the option of going to the source of the citation and read further.

Only in the age of the internet do people want a quick and dirty link to go to. We have all become lazy and don't go to the printed matter sources anymore. This is true for H.S. kids, college kids, and others. USDA and other government agencies, such as NIH, JAMA, etc., all have website links; however, they get their material from "published" matter that is in written form (with associated background reference citations).

Personally, as the published author of 3 books and numerous other published materials, the in text citations (e.g., Martin, W.T. (2009) are the standard for professional writing and publication.

;-)

 

[TexasBred]

I didnt ignore your post on OM 3's, but my research based info is the most up to date (June 2009) and just as in any research based literature your post while informative, interesting and relevant is now pas-se (out of date).
Ed

Don't tell me...you've figured out a way to get the OM 3's in one lb. of grass fed beef high enough to meet the daily requirements for OM3's....great job. All research prior to your 6/09 stuff is no longer relative..I did it long ago with fish oil and/or flaxseed. Cheap, guaranteed amount daily and higher quality.

Research shows grass-finished beef has higher levels of Vitamin A, Vitamin E, omega-3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acid (Duckett et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1996; French et al., 2000; Grześkiewicz et al., 2001; Poulson et al., 2004; Engle and Spears, 2004; Noci et al., 2005; Daley et al., 2005). Therefore, marketing claims that those nutrients are present in higher concentrations in grass-finished than in conventional beef are correct. However, claims that grass-finished beef is "healthier" as a result are not true, because the differences are not significant for human health (Chart 1 and 2). For instance, to achieve Recommended Daily Allowances and/or daily chemoprotective dietary levels of omega-3 fatty acids a person would have to eat at least 12 pounds of grass-fed beef (Rule et al., 2002; Martz et al., 2004; Guiffrida de Mendoza et al., 2005; Daley et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2005). While grassfinished beef has approximately 1/100 of a gram more omega-3 than grain-finished beef, salmon has 35 times as much omega-3 as grass-finished beef (Chart 3).

 

[edrsimms]

Ed ignored my posts about the omega 3's he's bragging about so much so I'll post a portion of it again. Give him another chance to instruct the unlearned. :lol2: :lol2:

Texasbred, I have refrained from publicly embarrassing you, because I don't believe this is the place to do it. This forum is for educational and informational purposes only and is not a spitting contest. I don't think you are an idiot or uneducated, but sometimes think you act like an idiot.

What I see are responses that tend to be biased and represent bad information -- many times, but not always. Just like in your responses about the grain-fed / grass-fed debate. You keep throwing up to me all these studies about Omega 3's that, I believe, are biased data, but you fail to mention a very fundamental part of any research and it shows your lack of understanding.

About 99.9% of the data you bring to the table lacks correct experimental design, which is the very basic starting point for any data collection (research). In your attempt to discredit me and/or disprove my findings you are really discrediting yourself as you are, indeed, your own worst enemy.

When research is performed under poor experimental design conditions, it ends up corrupt, biased and skewed in one direction. I don't know if you have willingly or knowingly done this, but it makes what you advocate absolutely worthless and discredits you.

A study that is done by using grain-fed cattle genetics for a forage based study will be biased and worthless. As our major profs always said: garbage in = garbage out.

This is a data set that you would advocate using grain-fed cattle genetics for both portions of the study:
You advocate using grain-fed genetics to study the differences in carcass merit between grass-fed and grain-fed. (Experimental Design Flawed which = a set up for failure)
50 head of grain-fed genetic cattle
25 grain-fed to the feedlot and fed grain and 25 grain-fed genetic cattle to a forage- finishing program and fed forage.

All animals are harvested, data is collected and some idiot gets his Masters or Ph.D. from it.

The bottom line is:
You cannot compare a data set using grain-fed genetics for both a grain-fed study and a grass-fed study.
Instead, you must use grass-fed genetics for the grass finishing part of the study and grain-fed genetics for a grain-fed portion of the study. Then and only then are you able to compare the two (apples to apples). And when you do this, as in the information I provided via USDA and Clemson University, there is a HUGE difference.

In your attempt to disprove and discredit the grass-fed producer all you have really done is prove something the grass-fed community has known for a long, long time:

That grain-fed cattle genetics will not work in a forage-based environment. You just can't see the forest for the trees, but thanks once again for proving our point to the world. Ed

 

[john250]

The bottom line is:
You cannot compare a data set using grain-fed genetics for both a grain-fed study and a grass-fed study.
Instead, you must use grass-fed genetics for the grass finishing part of the study and grain-fed genetics for a grain-fed portion of the study. Then and only then are you able to compare the two (apples to apples). And when you do this, as in the information I provided via USDA and Clemson University, there is a HUGE difference.

You want to introduce another variable (genetics) and your trial just got a lot less reliable. Increased variables=lower significance. One set of cattle, two rations=simple trial. 2 sets of cattle, two rations=much more complex (and less reliable) trial.

That grain-fed cattle genetics will not work in a forage-based environment.

Is that your best excuse?

 

[edrsimms]

John you cant compare apples to oranges as it will always skew the data one direction. If you are going to compare the two different finshed products you must first use a good example of each. All that is proven by using grain-fed genetic cattle for both a grain-fed and grass-fed study is that grain-fed genetics don't perform well on forage---- pssst < which is not what you want to do as a diehard grain fed enthusiast.

See people like Texasbred are so busy trying to disprove the findings of the competition that he gets lost in the weeds. He so wants to disprove the facts that he provides a biased, thus worthless study that only proves to the world what the competition has been sayng all along.. Texasbred should be the posterboy for Grassfed Beef because as long as his mouth is open and his gums are flapping he is proving to the world that grass-fed beef is indeed a better product.
Ed

 

[john250]

John you cant compare apples to oranges as it will always skew the data one direction. If you are going to compare the two different finshed products you must first use a good example of each. All that is proven by using grain-fed genetic cattle for both a grain-fed and grass-fed study is that grain-fed genetics don't perform well on forage---- pssst < which is not what you want to do as a diehard grain fed enthusiast.

See people like Texasbred are so busy trying to disprove the findings of the competition that he gets lost in the weeds. He so wants to disprove the facts that he provides a biased, thus worthless study that only proves to the world what the competition has been sayng all along.. Texasbred should be the posterboy for Grassfed Beef because as long as his mouth is open and his gums are flapping he is proving to the world that grass-fed beef is indeed a better product.
Ed

And the converse--how do grass-fed genetics perform on grain?.
Corn is taking a lot of abuse from the media these days. Corn got to be the #1 crop in the US for some very good reasons. It is dense in nutrients for cattle or humans. It yields like nothing else. Fed to steers, or hogs or chickens, it takes on added value. Not to mention the still.
When you get a forage mix to equal that, I'll get interested.

Cows have always, and will always have to make it on the cheap ground. If you win this debate, Argentina or Brazil will always trump you on a price for grass finished beef. They can do it cheaper.

The US cattle business seems to rise and fall with the traffic at Ruth's Cris. When you sell steaks there, I'll be all ears, and so will a lot of this board.

So, you wish to show that grass fed beef is "healthier", whatever that means. Lower in one thing, higher in another, what does all that mean in the end? "Healthier" is so vague because we are all different. Personally, I'm not the least interested in counting calories or Omega whatevers. My cholesterol is way good, I'm not overweight, my family lives to be a burden on their children. And I am going to die. Sometime.

"Healthier" does not sell much beef. In this time, "healthier" means "Vegan".
"Special treat" sells beef. To me, that means corn finished.
But heck, I'm just a tool of the machine. What could I possibly know?

 

[edrsimms]

John that is a well thought out post and on topic and I believe that is maybe the nicest you have ever been to me since I have been on this forum-- and it is appreciated-- ty.
You ask How do grass-fed genetics perform on grain? This reminds me of the example of why the stocker buyers from the west hate purchasing stocker calves from the east. Normally a stocker from the east (from a softer environment) does worse in a stocker operation because he hasnt adjusted or acclimated to his new harsher surroundings. Normally cattle from harsher surroundings do ok in the softer environment but the reverse is seldom true. Take the grain fed calf for instance and put him in a grass finishing program -- he is pathetic and usually culled because he has come from a softer environment (the grain bucket) to a harsher environment (no feed bucket ever) Here again, the grass-fed genetics calf that is from a harsher environment excells in the grain-fed (softer environment).
I am not anti-corn, but I dont feel it is necessary for the natural grass consuming machine like the Cow. To me it is an un-needed input that just edges into my profits-- I dont need it.
I plan to share a forage mix, with this forum, that has some numbers you cannot deny.
As far a winning a debate --I don't care to win a debate - I just wanted to share some info for those (and that may not be you) who were interested in grass-fed beef, but being independent of grain means that you don't have to march to anyones drum but your own. I will share some background with you so you have some understanding where I come from. I started ranching in 1972 and at that time my grandfather was upset about where the cattle business was headed. He thought that the ranching business was getting too dependent on the dirt farmers, which he had always had a strong dislike of a farmer. I, just like you, had bought in to the grain-fed scenario and in the next 10 years I changed the cattle and was a grain-fed enthusiast just like you. I managed a stocker operation, a feedlot, a bull test station and cow/calf operation for 10 years. My grandfather just frowned at me all the time.lol. About my 12th year into my "new cattle business" I started to understand what grandfather was talking about and the only thing I did was to destroy years of grass-fed genetics. 1984 I had a complete dispersal and sold every grainer I had, left the country and spent 3 years working in South America for keep to learn better about grass-fed beef. Been Grass-fed since 1987. I like the fact that I am independent of others and i only march to my own drum. I like the idea that I am a Traditional Rancher a grass and range manager and my cattle work for me instead of me working for them as far as health goes --yeah it is healthier, but to each their own.
Ed

And the converse--how do grass-fed genetics perform on grain?.
Corn is taking a lot of abuse from the media these days. Corn got to be the #1 crop in the US for some very good reasons. It is dense in nutrients for cattle or humans. It yields like nothing else. Fed to steers, or hogs or chickens, it takes on added value. Not to mention the still.
When you get a forage mix to equal that, I'll get interested.

Cows have always, and will always have to make it on the cheap ground. If you win this debate, Argentina or Brazil will always trump you on a price for grass finished beef. They can do it cheaper.

The US cattle business seems to rise and fall with the traffic at Ruth's Cris. When you sell steaks there, I'll be all ears, and so will a lot of this board.

So, you wish to show that grass fed beef is "healthier", whatever that means. Lower in one thing, higher in another, what does all that mean in the end? "Healthier" is so vague because we are all different. Personally, I'm not the least interested in counting calories or Omega whatevers. My cholesterol is way good, I'm not overweight, my family lives to be a burden on their children. And I am going to die. Sometime.

"Healthier" does not sell much beef. In this time, "healthier" means "Vegan".
"Special treat" sells beef. To me, that means corn finished.
But heck, I'm just a tool of the machine. What could I possibly know?

 

[talldog]

Gberry we can read til he1 freezes over, it does not mean that we all understand what is written....good examples are being submitted by congress right now. Also not all research is 100% unbiased as someone pays for Joe Blow to do this research and he usually finds what he's told to find. You can write a thesis anytime, but it does not mean it is necessarily correct. You simply reached a conclusion based on what your experimentation showed and how you interpreted the data.

Ed ignored my posts about the omega 3's he's bragging about so much so I'll post a portion of it again. Give him another chance to instruct the unlearned. :lol2: :lol2:

The absolute amount of omega-3 fatty acids derived from beef is just too small, regardless of whether it is grass or grain-fed. A one pound steak only has between 70-225 mg of omega-3 fatty acids (most of which isn't the more beneficial marine omega-3s, EPA and DHA). Compare this to the amount of omega-3s you get from either wild-caught or farmed salmon. So while it's true that the omega-6mega-3 ratios are lower for grass-fed beef, a look at the absolute masses of the separate fatty acid classes suggests that this isn't really practically relevant. Now don't get me wrong, there are many other benefits of grass-fed beef. If money weren't a constraint, I would eat it all the time. However, I don't think that the omega-3 content of beef should be a factor when deciding whether to buy grass-fed over grain-fed. If you want to improve your omega-6mega-3 dietary ratio, you would do better to eat more seafood and reduce your intake of vegetable oils.

Some Joe BLOW, writes ALL we read,whether or NOT we believe that person is our CHOICE !! There's always a CHOICE !!
Personally I've done my research for years along with READING authors whom I respect, I've found Ed to be "Right on " in MY book but if you don't----I respect that !!!! :tiphat:

 

[TexasBred]

Texasbred, I have refrained from publicly embarrassing you, because I don't believe this is the place to do it. This forum is for educational and informational purposes only and is not a spitting contest. I don't think you are an idiot or uneducated, but sometimes think you act like an idiot. No I just enjoy the hel out of needling you

What I see are responses that tend to be biased and represent bad information -- biased?? If anyone is biased it's you fellow. You started your initial post with an attack against anyone that feeds the first kernel of grain and doesn't agree with youmany times, but not always. Just like in your responses about the grain-fed / grass-fed debate. You keep throwing up to me all these studies about Omega 3's that, I believe, are biased data, but you fail to mention a very fundamental part of any research and it shows your lack of understanding.No..the truth is, you cannot refute the information. You're the one preaching O3's...truth is that even in your grass fed beef they are at best a small portion of recommended daily requirements and certainly not high enough to allow you to make any claim relative to health

About 99.9% of the data you bring to the table lacks correct experimental design, which is the very basic starting point for any data collection (research). In your attempt to discredit me and/or disprove my findings you are really discrediting yourself as you are, indeed, your own worst enemy. Did you really check it out or just ignore the data because YOU disagreed with the results?? Tunnel vision will get you in trouble Mr. Ed.

When research is performed under poor experimental design conditions, it ends up corrupt, biased and skewed in one direction. I don't know if you have willingly or knowingly done this, but it makes what you advocate absolutely worthless and discredits you. Yet you quote only from YOUR people

A study that is done by using grain-fed cattle genetics for a forage based study will be biased and worthless. As our major profs always said: garbage in = garbage out. This is whwat you've been giving us

This is a data set that you would advocate using grain-fed cattle genetics for both portions of the study:
You advocate using grain-fed genetics to study the differences in carcass merit between grass-fed and grain-fed. (Experimental Design Flawed which = a set up for failure)
50 head of grain-fed genetic cattle
25 grain-fed to the feedlot and fed grain and 25 grain-fed genetic cattle to a forage- finishing program and fed forage.

All animals are harvested, data is collected and some idiot gets his Masters or Ph.D. from it.

The bottom line is:
You cannot compare a data set using grain-fed genetics for both a grain-fed study and a grass-fed study.
Instead, you must use grass-fed genetics for the grass finishing part of the study and grain-fed genetics for a grain-fed portion of the study. Then and only then are you able to compare the two (apples to apples). And when you do this, as in the information I provided via USDA and Clemson University, there is a HUGE difference.

In your attempt to disprove and discredit the grass-fed producer all you have really done is prove something the grass-fed community has known for a long, long time:

That grain-fed cattle genetics will not work in a forage-based environment. You just can't see the forest for the trees, but thanks once again for proving our point to the world. Ed

Actually Ed all you've shown us is a jungle of underbrush, with really very little meaning to John Doe Consumer...Explain to him why YOUR beef cost twice as much as grain fed beef...could it have anything to do with expense??

 

[TexasBred]

Gberry we can read til he1 freezes over, it does not mean that we all understand what is written....good examples are being submitted by congress right now. Also not all research is 100% unbiased as someone pays for Joe Blow to do this research and he usually finds what he's told to find. You can write a thesis anytime, but it does not mean it is necessarily correct. You simply reached a conclusion based on what your experimentation showed and how you interpreted the data.

Ed ignored my posts about the omega 3's he's bragging about so much so I'll post a portion of it again. Give him another chance to instruct the unlearned. :lol2: :lol2:

The absolute amount of omega-3 fatty acids derived from beef is just too small, regardless of whether it is grass or grain-fed. A one pound steak only has between 70-225 mg of omega-3 fatty acids (most of which isn't the more beneficial marine omega-3s, EPA and DHA). Compare this to the amount of omega-3s you get from either wild-caught or farmed salmon. So while it's true that the omega-6mega-3 ratios are lower for grass-fed beef, a look at the absolute masses of the separate fatty acid classes suggests that this isn't really practically relevant. Now don't get me wrong, there are many other benefits of grass-fed beef. If money weren't a constraint, I would eat it all the time. However, I don't think that the omega-3 content of beef should be a factor when deciding whether to buy grass-fed over grain-fed. If you want to improve your omega-6mega-3 dietary ratio, you would do better to eat more seafood and reduce your intake of vegetable oils.

Some Joe BLOW, writes ALL we read,whether or NOT we believe that person is our CHOICE !! There's always a CHOICE !!
Personally I've done my research for years along with READING authors whom I respect, I've found Ed to be "Right on " in MY book but if you don't----I respect that !!!! :tiphat:

And that my friend is the correct answer.....now help Ed understand that.

 

[brandonm_13]

Texasbred, I have refrained from publicly embarrassing you, because I don't believe this is the place to do it. This forum is for educational and informational purposes only and is not a spitting contest. I don't think you are an idiot or uneducated, but sometimes think you act like an idiot. No I just enjoy the hel out of needling you

What I see are responses that tend to be biased and represent bad information -- biased?? If anyone is biased it's you fellow. You started your initial post with an attack against anyone that feeds the first kernel of grain and doesn't agree with youmany times, but not always. Just like in your responses about the grain-fed / grass-fed debate. You keep throwing up to me all these studies about Omega 3's that, I believe, are biased data, but you fail to mention a very fundamental part of any research and it shows your lack of understanding.No..the truth is, you cannot refute the information. You're the one preaching O3's...truth is that even in your grass fed beef they are at best a small portion of recommended daily requirements and certainly not high enough to allow you to make any claim relative to health

About 99.9% of the data you bring to the table lacks correct experimental design, which is the very basic starting point for any data collection (research). In your attempt to discredit me and/or disprove my findings you are really discrediting yourself as you are, indeed, your own worst enemy. Did you really check it out or just ignore the data because YOU disagreed with the results?? Tunnel vision will get you in trouble Mr. Ed.

When research is performed under poor experimental design conditions, it ends up corrupt, biased and skewed in one direction. I don't know if you have willingly or knowingly done this, but it makes what you advocate absolutely worthless and discredits you. Yet you quote only from YOUR people

A study that is done by using grain-fed cattle genetics for a forage based study will be biased and worthless. As our major profs always said: garbage in = garbage out. This is whwat you've been giving us

This is a data set that you would advocate using grain-fed cattle genetics for both portions of the study:
You advocate using grain-fed genetics to study the differences in carcass merit between grass-fed and grain-fed. (Experimental Design Flawed which = a set up for failure)
50 head of grain-fed genetic cattle
25 grain-fed to the feedlot and fed grain and 25 grain-fed genetic cattle to a forage- finishing program and fed forage.

All animals are harvested, data is collected and some idiot gets his Masters or Ph.D. from it.

The bottom line is:
You cannot compare a data set using grain-fed genetics for both a grain-fed study and a grass-fed study.
Instead, you must use grass-fed genetics for the grass finishing part of the study and grain-fed genetics for a grain-fed portion of the study. Then and only then are you able to compare the two (apples to apples). And when you do this, as in the information I provided via USDA and Clemson University, there is a HUGE difference.

In your attempt to disprove and discredit the grass-fed producer all you have really done is prove something the grass-fed community has known for a long, long time:

That grain-fed cattle genetics will not work in a forage-based environment. You just can't see the forest for the trees, but thanks once again for proving our point to the world. Ed

Actually Ed all you've shown us is a jungle of underbrush, with really very little meaning to John Doe Consumer...Explain to him why YOUR beef cost twice as much as grain fed beef...could it have anything to do with expense??

It's pretty simple. Grassfed is the big thing now, so the demand versus the supply is very high so he can afford to charge more. Once more people start producing it, they'll have to compete with each other as well as the grainfed market. Personally, I can make a good profit just by selling for standard retail prices. It's cheaper than alot of grassfed meat, and retail is a much better profit margin than wholesale.

 

[grannysoo]

Hey Ed! Let's see some pics of them pastures that you have with those grass fed cattle. I sure could use a good example to help me in my search for good forage.

I'll be back around soon to check on them. I've got 60 acres to plant this evening with a MF135 and a 2 row planter, but 'ole tophand taught me how to do it in an hour or so. Hope I can learn as much from you as I did him.

Looking forward to them.........