Dave Sill wrote:
> Michael S Lorrey <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > healthfully.
> Only sweet corn, which is grown for human consumption, has enough sugar to
> be sweet to the taste. Field corn, from which animal feeds, corn syrup, and
> almost all other corn products are derived, is very starchy and not very
> sweet. Rice, wheat, and barley are also "atom bombs" of starches. What makes
> them so great and corn so evil?
> > > Why do you say that? As far as I can tell, corn, barley, and rice are
> > > strikingly similar, nutrionally. For example, see:
> > >
> > > http://waltonfeed.com/self/ntr3.html
> > Where then is the wheat, rice, and barley syrup?
> All of those exist, they're just much more expensive to produce than corn
Why is that, if they are so similar?
> > Corn is higher in sugar (I
> > notice the page you referenced does not break down the carbohydrates at all),
> No, it's not. Corn syrup isn't produced by tapping cornstalks and ears and
> boiling the sap. It's produced by chemically converting the starches to
> sugars, a process known as refining. For more information, see:
This page does nothing to detail the carbohydrate content versus other grains. I
suspect there are significant differences.
> > 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).
> Cereal is sweetened. You can't blame that on the corn.
Sweetened with corn syrup, right?
> > 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.
> That's fine. You're welcome to eat whatever kind of meat you like. Most
> people would probably find it tough and oddly flavored. It's probably
> healthier than grain-finished beef. It seems to me, though, that the health
> benefits are due primarily to the lower fat content.
Actually, caribou is far more tender than most beef I have had, while at the
same time lower in fat, by far. I don't know why it is so tender, perhaps
because the muscle fibers are finer, but it is. Venison and moose are not tough,
and the flavoring is fine if you treat the animal right after shooting it.
Venison burgers are better than just about anything, and garlic and cheese bear
sausage is quite tasty. Proper field dressing, and transporting it cold (i.e.
not over the hood of your engine or flat on the bed of your pickup over the
muffler, use a pallet or two to support the animal, or better yet, use a
trailer) minimize the 'gaminess', which is actually caused by this preheating
which sours the meat (shooting the animal while in rut also contributes to this,
and I'll bet cows don't get butchered in estrus, do they?). Meat ought to have
tastes that are different for each animal. Duck, pheasant, and woodcock are some
of my favorite tasting meats. The bland 'tastes like chicken' attitude is for
people that might as well be living on oatmeal, and the taste of beef is just
the taste of fatty meat.
> > 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.
> You misunderstand. My beef is not for sale. I understand and agree with your
> desire for hormone and chemical free meat, but I'm not as convinced of the
> need for them to live off the land and walk N miles per/day. (My cattle walk
> quite a bit, but I've never attached bovine pedometers to them to see
> exactly how far they go.) I like my beef fairly lean, too, but I like a
> tender steak now and then, and I like the way grain-finished beef tastes. If
> I was willing to give all that up for the health benefits, I'd give up beef
Frankly I would not mind if they took hormones, so long as they were fit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT