Grass-Fed Beef: Green? Humane? Healthful?
March 20, 2013
By Gene C. Sager
A variety of claims have been voiced about grass-fed beef, the beef produced from grass-fed cattle. Advocates favorably contrast grass-fed beef to beef produced by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Some even recommend grass-fed as an opportunity for “recovering” vegetarians to start eating meat.
There is no universal definition of “grass-fed,” but we can contrast CAFO beef production with the definition of grass-fed used by the American Grass-Fed Association (AGA). Some of the differences between the two are striking.
- CAFO cattle are fed mostly corn and soy during the last six months of their lives; grass-fed consume only “forage,” which usually means grass and hay. Production of corn and soy for beef cattle (instead of for humans) is a very inefficient use of resources. Grass-fed beef is less resource-costly.
- CAFO cattle are confined in feedlots, whereas grass-fed cattle are free-range.
- CAFO cattle are given antibiotics and hormones on a regular basis, but grass-fed cattle are not.
- CAFO feedlots collect vast amounts of manure in a small area, causing air pollution when the wind blows and water pollution when it rains, leaching into the groundwater. Grass-fed cattle are natural manure spreaders and, if not overgrazed, distribute fertilizer throughout the pasture.
- CAFO beef has high levels of cholesterol and saturated fat, but low levels of omega fats and vitamin E. Grass-fed has less cholesterol, less saturated fat, more omega fats, and more vitamin E. It also contains conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which may be an anticarcinogen.
- CAFO is readily available in markets and restaurants. Grass-fed is not readily available and is more expensive. Time/CNN recently reported that grass-fed constitutes only 1% of the beef supply in North America.
Grass-fed methods of beef production are clearly better for the environment, better for the cattle, and better for the consumer’s health. Better than CAFO beef production, that is.
We need a comprehensive approach to grass-fed beef, one that asks, “All things considered, is grass-fed beef a wise food choice?”
How Green is Grass-Fed Beef?
Consumers tend to mix and blend the terms “grass-fed” and “organic.” The perception is that grass-fed is enviro-friendly and healthful, so it is assumed that it is organic. However, most governmental and independent organizations that deal with these issues do not equate grass-fed and organic. Neither the Canadian government nor the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) organic labels mean that the beef is grass-fed. Their published standards explain that organic beef may be either grass-fed or grain-fed.
How can a grass-fed product fail to be organic? Sometimes herbicides like Grazon P&D and Redeem R&P are sprayed on the hayfield or on the pasture itself. Some weeds are poisonous for cattle and must be eradicated. Herbicides are also used to control broadleaf weeds that crowd out the grasses. The herbicide toxins will eventually travel up into the flesh of the cattle as they eat and also down into the groundwater and eventually into our wells, streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Many grass-fed farmers in Canada and the United States have to grow hay (or buy it) to feed their cattle during the cold months. Contrast this to vegetables like beans, which are somewhat similar to beef in nutritional value for human consumption. No additional field is required to support the production of beans, but grass-fed requires a separate crop (hay) which has to be cut, bailed, and transferred to the cattle. So in many cases it takes 2 fields to produce a pound of beef for us to eat—but only one field to produce a pound of beans.
The resource-intensity of all beef production is nowhere more evident than at a slaughter house. Whether CAFO or grass-fed beef, the laughtering and meat packing process involves vast amounts of energy and water. Workers wield high pressure hoses that shoot steaming hot water and chemicals. By comparison, preparing broccoli or spinach for the market is a simple process.
Refrigeration is an essential part of beef production, and the electricity and fossil fuels required is in stark contrast to getting a product like pinto beans on your shelf. Once the beans are dry, no refrigeration is required. Beef has to be refrigerated at the slaughter house and in the truck that transfers it to the market. The market has to keep it cold, and you have to keep it refrigerated at home until you eat it.
Both CAFO and grass-fed beef produce methane, a gas emitted from both ends of a cow that is a major greenhouse gas. Also, grass-fed cows require pasture their entire lives. This amplifies existing grazing issues: loss of rainforests and other lands, erosion, wildlife habitat problems, and the use of public lands for grazing.
Conversion of forests and other land into pasture is a global issue. Rainforests in South America have been sacrificed to create McDonald’s hamburgers. McDonalds now claims it buys no “rainforest beef”, but the realities of the global market are a great temptation to many. Where land is cheap and the demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local economy may respond by cutting down a forest to create pasture or by planting grass where millet or rice has been grown. A sign of the times is Trader Joe’s grass-fed beef imported from Uruguay and Australia.
The problem of erosion, and more generally, overgrazing, is always an issue with cattle. It is not simply a matter of the amount of grass covering the ground. Natural drainage ditches, low areas, and streams are especially vulnerable, and cattle can quickly degrade and pollute these crucial lifelines.
In many countries, including the U.S., beef production involves the use of public lands like National Parks for grazing. Ranchers pay a small fee for this privilege, but obviously the real issue is not money. Environmentalists have been battling against this governmental policy for decades without success. If the demand for grass-fed beef increases, we will likely see more cow pies in our public lands.
Grass-fed does not create the air and water pollution problems caused by CAFO manure in feedlots; and grass-fed spares us the ominous presence of antibiotics and hormones, some of which cattle urinate into the ground and some of which they retain in their flesh. So, is grass-fed beef green?
By my reckoning, CAFO beef is not green at all, and grass-fed cattle are still a serious problem for the environment.
Is Grass-Fed Beef Humane?
When the Humane Society released video clips showing non-ambulatory cows (not able to stand or walk) being jabbed with an electric prod at the Hallmark Slaughtering Plant in Chino California, people in the U. S. and Canada were outraged. A public outcry went up, calling for humane treatment. Court cases ensued and the government initiated a meat recall.
The concept of humane treatment of livestock covers a wide variety of issues such as confinement, diet, drugs, and stress levels. Handling questions include prodding, castration, and identification (branding and tagging). Transfer (as in trucking cattle to the slaughter house) and method of slaughter are perennial issues. Surely, we would hope the beef we buy comes from cattle that are treated well throughout the production process, not just in regard to confinement and feed issues.
Grass-fed beef production is clearly more humane than CAFO production, especially because the animals are not confined in a feedlot. The “C” in CAFO stands for concentrated, and indeed the feedlots are concentration camps. In addition, some studies of CAFO cattle indicate that the grain diet causes liver damage and acidosis (acid indigestion).
Two important aspects of humane treatment are transfer and slaughter. Almost all beef production involves the transfer of cattle to the slaughter house, usually by truck. No matter how careful the driver, the animals are liable to suffer from extreme stress, thirst, and exhaustion. A common method of slaughter is that cattle are stunned with a captured bolt pistol. If it does not render the animal unconscious by the time it reaches the bleed rail (the next stage after the kill) it has to be re-stunned. Plants often apply a head restraint before stunning, and sometimes this apparatus is faulty.
In general, the moral issues relating to slaughter involve both the problem of the pain caused to the animal in this process, and the issue of the right to deprive the animal of its life. There is also this general moral position which cannot be ignored: taking the life of an innocent sentient being is never right. For a person holding this principle, slaughter is never humane.
Is Grass-Fed Beef a Healthful Food Choice?
In comparison to CAFO, grass-fed is like a health food. Nutritional descriptions of grass-fed by its advocates read like a health food ad: Grass-fed beef contains vitamins A, D, B complex, and E, iron, calcium, and a range of minerals. Like all meat, it offers a healthy dose of protein. It contains no antibiotics and no hormones. In addition, it contains the omegas (essential fatty acids), and it has CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) which fights cancer and supports the immune system. It is definitely lower in cholesterol and saturated fat than CAFO beef.
Grass-fed beef does contain these nutrients, although some of them in small amounts. But the “good contents” of grass-fed can be found in non-meat products. There is abundant iron in beans, lentils, and quinoa. Nuts, dark leafy greens and whole grains are rich in vitamin E. Essential fatty acids are available in flax, avocados and many oils such as olive, safflower, and sunflower.
There are well-known cancer fighting vegetables readily available, notably the Brassicaceae family of plants which includes broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower. Researchers affirm that a well balanced vegetarian diet provides adequate nutrition, including all the “health food” nutrients of grass-fed enumerated above.
I am afraid the bottom line is this: What we would hope for is assurance that our beef is organic, grass-fed, green in the local and global senses, and Certified Humane®. Grass-fed is certainly greener, more humane and more healthful than CAFO beef.
But beef production is a complex, messy, and inefficient business. Compared to producing vegetables and grains, beef production involves much more energy and other resources. As grass-fed production grows, we face a global problem of grazing space that replaces other land uses. Finally, we have to consider a range of issues about the humane treatment of animals.
All things considered, is grass-fed beef a wise food choice?
Gene C. Sager is a Professor of Environmental Ethics at Palomar College in San Marcos, CA
Source: http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/03/20/food-health/grass-fed-beef-green-humane-healthful/
LivingGreenMag.com
Posted: March 30, 2013 by Certified Humane
Grass-Fed Beef: Green? Humane? Healthful?
March 20, 2013
By Gene C. Sager
A variety of claims have been voiced about grass-fed beef, the beef produced from grass-fed cattle. Advocates favorably contrast grass-fed beef to beef produced by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Some even recommend grass-fed as an opportunity for “recovering” vegetarians to start eating meat.
There is no universal definition of “grass-fed,” but we can contrast CAFO beef production with the definition of grass-fed used by the American Grass-Fed Association (AGA). Some of the differences between the two are striking.
Grass-fed methods of beef production are clearly better for the environment, better for the cattle, and better for the consumer’s health. Better than CAFO beef production, that is.
We need a comprehensive approach to grass-fed beef, one that asks, “All things considered, is grass-fed beef a wise food choice?”
How Green is Grass-Fed Beef?
Consumers tend to mix and blend the terms “grass-fed” and “organic.” The perception is that grass-fed is enviro-friendly and healthful, so it is assumed that it is organic. However, most governmental and independent organizations that deal with these issues do not equate grass-fed and organic. Neither the Canadian government nor the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) organic labels mean that the beef is grass-fed. Their published standards explain that organic beef may be either grass-fed or grain-fed.
How can a grass-fed product fail to be organic? Sometimes herbicides like Grazon P&D and Redeem R&P are sprayed on the hayfield or on the pasture itself. Some weeds are poisonous for cattle and must be eradicated. Herbicides are also used to control broadleaf weeds that crowd out the grasses. The herbicide toxins will eventually travel up into the flesh of the cattle as they eat and also down into the groundwater and eventually into our wells, streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Many grass-fed farmers in Canada and the United States have to grow hay (or buy it) to feed their cattle during the cold months. Contrast this to vegetables like beans, which are somewhat similar to beef in nutritional value for human consumption. No additional field is required to support the production of beans, but grass-fed requires a separate crop (hay) which has to be cut, bailed, and transferred to the cattle. So in many cases it takes 2 fields to produce a pound of beef for us to eat—but only one field to produce a pound of beans.
The resource-intensity of all beef production is nowhere more evident than at a slaughter house. Whether CAFO or grass-fed beef, the laughtering and meat packing process involves vast amounts of energy and water. Workers wield high pressure hoses that shoot steaming hot water and chemicals. By comparison, preparing broccoli or spinach for the market is a simple process.
Refrigeration is an essential part of beef production, and the electricity and fossil fuels required is in stark contrast to getting a product like pinto beans on your shelf. Once the beans are dry, no refrigeration is required. Beef has to be refrigerated at the slaughter house and in the truck that transfers it to the market. The market has to keep it cold, and you have to keep it refrigerated at home until you eat it.
Both CAFO and grass-fed beef produce methane, a gas emitted from both ends of a cow that is a major greenhouse gas. Also, grass-fed cows require pasture their entire lives. This amplifies existing grazing issues: loss of rainforests and other lands, erosion, wildlife habitat problems, and the use of public lands for grazing.
Conversion of forests and other land into pasture is a global issue. Rainforests in South America have been sacrificed to create McDonald’s hamburgers. McDonalds now claims it buys no “rainforest beef”, but the realities of the global market are a great temptation to many. Where land is cheap and the demand for grass-fed cattle is on the rise, the local economy may respond by cutting down a forest to create pasture or by planting grass where millet or rice has been grown. A sign of the times is Trader Joe’s grass-fed beef imported from Uruguay and Australia.
The problem of erosion, and more generally, overgrazing, is always an issue with cattle. It is not simply a matter of the amount of grass covering the ground. Natural drainage ditches, low areas, and streams are especially vulnerable, and cattle can quickly degrade and pollute these crucial lifelines.
In many countries, including the U.S., beef production involves the use of public lands like National Parks for grazing. Ranchers pay a small fee for this privilege, but obviously the real issue is not money. Environmentalists have been battling against this governmental policy for decades without success. If the demand for grass-fed beef increases, we will likely see more cow pies in our public lands.
Grass-fed does not create the air and water pollution problems caused by CAFO manure in feedlots; and grass-fed spares us the ominous presence of antibiotics and hormones, some of which cattle urinate into the ground and some of which they retain in their flesh. So, is grass-fed beef green?
By my reckoning, CAFO beef is not green at all, and grass-fed cattle are still a serious problem for the environment.
Is Grass-Fed Beef Humane?
When the Humane Society released video clips showing non-ambulatory cows (not able to stand or walk) being jabbed with an electric prod at the Hallmark Slaughtering Plant in Chino California, people in the U. S. and Canada were outraged. A public outcry went up, calling for humane treatment. Court cases ensued and the government initiated a meat recall.
The concept of humane treatment of livestock covers a wide variety of issues such as confinement, diet, drugs, and stress levels. Handling questions include prodding, castration, and identification (branding and tagging). Transfer (as in trucking cattle to the slaughter house) and method of slaughter are perennial issues. Surely, we would hope the beef we buy comes from cattle that are treated well throughout the production process, not just in regard to confinement and feed issues.
Grass-fed beef production is clearly more humane than CAFO production, especially because the animals are not confined in a feedlot. The “C” in CAFO stands for concentrated, and indeed the feedlots are concentration camps. In addition, some studies of CAFO cattle indicate that the grain diet causes liver damage and acidosis (acid indigestion).
Two important aspects of humane treatment are transfer and slaughter. Almost all beef production involves the transfer of cattle to the slaughter house, usually by truck. No matter how careful the driver, the animals are liable to suffer from extreme stress, thirst, and exhaustion. A common method of slaughter is that cattle are stunned with a captured bolt pistol. If it does not render the animal unconscious by the time it reaches the bleed rail (the next stage after the kill) it has to be re-stunned. Plants often apply a head restraint before stunning, and sometimes this apparatus is faulty.
In general, the moral issues relating to slaughter involve both the problem of the pain caused to the animal in this process, and the issue of the right to deprive the animal of its life. There is also this general moral position which cannot be ignored: taking the life of an innocent sentient being is never right. For a person holding this principle, slaughter is never humane.
Is Grass-Fed Beef a Healthful Food Choice?
In comparison to CAFO, grass-fed is like a health food. Nutritional descriptions of grass-fed by its advocates read like a health food ad: Grass-fed beef contains vitamins A, D, B complex, and E, iron, calcium, and a range of minerals. Like all meat, it offers a healthy dose of protein. It contains no antibiotics and no hormones. In addition, it contains the omegas (essential fatty acids), and it has CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) which fights cancer and supports the immune system. It is definitely lower in cholesterol and saturated fat than CAFO beef.
Grass-fed beef does contain these nutrients, although some of them in small amounts. But the “good contents” of grass-fed can be found in non-meat products. There is abundant iron in beans, lentils, and quinoa. Nuts, dark leafy greens and whole grains are rich in vitamin E. Essential fatty acids are available in flax, avocados and many oils such as olive, safflower, and sunflower.
There are well-known cancer fighting vegetables readily available, notably the Brassicaceae family of plants which includes broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower. Researchers affirm that a well balanced vegetarian diet provides adequate nutrition, including all the “health food” nutrients of grass-fed enumerated above.
I am afraid the bottom line is this: What we would hope for is assurance that our beef is organic, grass-fed, green in the local and global senses, and Certified Humane®. Grass-fed is certainly greener, more humane and more healthful than CAFO beef.
But beef production is a complex, messy, and inefficient business. Compared to producing vegetables and grains, beef production involves much more energy and other resources. As grass-fed production grows, we face a global problem of grazing space that replaces other land uses. Finally, we have to consider a range of issues about the humane treatment of animals.
All things considered, is grass-fed beef a wise food choice?
Gene C. Sager is a Professor of Environmental Ethics at Palomar College in San Marcos, CA
Source: http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/03/20/food-health/grass-fed-beef-green-humane-healthful/
Category: news