Dave Sill wrote:
> Michael S Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Any cornfed domestic animal will have much higher fat and cholesterol levels
> > than ones fed on the range. Of course, fatty foods taste better to many people,
> > and its easier to bulk your animals up on corn than grass, so its more
> > profitable for the farmer to operate on a corn diet of various degrees.
> Grain finished beef tastes better and is more tender, regardless of thespecies of grain used.
> > I don't
> > know the biochemical differences between corn and other grains like wheat or
> > rice, but it is the newest major domesticated grain, and thus the least likely
> > for humans or their domesticated animals to be adapted to digesting efficiently
> > or healthfully.
> Corn is at least 7000 years old versus wheat/barley ~10000. I don't think
> that's a big difference. And, of course, humans and animals ate the wild
> varieties long before they were domesticated.
> American farmers use corn to finish cattle for one reason: cost.
As I said, it is most profitable for farmers to do so.
Now, corn, up until 500 years ago was completely unknown to anyone but Native
Americans and Llamas. Caucasoid, African, Asian and even Australian and
polynesian people have had no experience with it prior to that. Moreover, up
until 500 years ago, maize was a pretty pathetic little thing compared to the
atom bomb of sugars and starches it is now. As I said, it is least likely for
humans or their domesticated animals to be adapted to digesting efficiently or
> > I can understand the draw, as I appreciate the taste of a couple
> > ears of ripe Butter and Sugar corn in a nice fall barbecue, but I'm sure if
> > given the chance I'd develop a taste for crack if I could legally buy a dozen
> > hits for a dollar. Thats essentially what corn is: its the crack cocaine of
> > domesticated grains, and nearly as bad for you as cane sugar.
> Why do you say that? As far as I can tell, corn, barley, and rice are
> strikingly similar, nutrionally. For example, see:
Where then is the wheat, rice, and barley syrup? Corn is higher in sugar (I
notice the page you referenced does not break down the carbohydrates at all),
and is also very low in thiamin, niacin, and calcium compared to the others,
though it is well endowed with Vitamin A. The sugar is the big thing, most
cornfed cows are sugar junkies, this I know from experience, since if given the
opportunity they will prefer cereal surplus even over well fermented silage (the
apple jacks and other cinnamon cereals do tend to pass the cinnamon through to
the milk, though). They are essentially couch potato junk food junkies. I'll bet
if you had a cannibal feeding off couch potatos, he would have the exact same
health problems as someone who lived off cornfed cattle.
Not for me. I want my meat from lean athletic animals that work for a living
(and work out all day). Fish swim all day, grouse, woodcock, duck, geese, and
wild turkey all scratch out their living in the wild, deer get chased around
pretty thoroughly by dogs, coyotes, cars, and any odd sound that sets them into
hysterics, while moose are constantly working the swamp wading treadmill, and
caribou are the long distance kings.
You may have hormone and chemical free cattle, but unless they walk at least a
few miles a day and live off the land, I'm not interested. Sure I'm an odd
customer in today's society, but until some farmers, at least, are producing
truly natural beef, then it will continue to be the dioxin of the human diet,
and vegans arguments will continue to have merit. Will people be willing to pay
the price? I don't know. Currently its cheaper for me to go shoot a deer or
moose or other wild animal than to buy the same weight in beef from the store,
and I get free exercise in the outdoors doing so as well.
> > > Just out of curiosity--I don't doubt your word--but what measurable benefit
> > > can you attribute to cutting out 5-10% beef? And what is the basis of that
> > > percentage: calories of total diet, protein by weight, or what?
> > I can't tell you any specifics. I cut it out, and I'm now much better for it. I
> > don't count calories or weigh myself, as I don't want to develop any obsessive
> > behaviors in my diet... It is, though, difficult to not notice a difference in
> > waist size of four inches.
> OK, that's great, but you haven't identified the basis of the 5-10% number.
> 5-10% of *what* by *what* was beef?
5-10% of my meat, by weight.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT