Talk:Cattle feeding

The subject of this article seems fine to me, I have nothing against grass-fed beef, it's just that the link at the end seems to make the entire article seem like an advertisement. User:Paddy_O'Leibowitz_McGoldstein 22:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Assertion about BSE

I removed the unsourced and unverifiable assertion about a "mistaken assumption" regarding a lower risk of BSE from grass-fed beef. In point of fact, BSE has been verifiably associated with contamination of animal feed with mammalian animal tissue, particularly nervous system tissue; in the case of grass-fed rather that feedlot beef, this is not an issue. See (for example) [1], [2], and [3]. MCB 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Restoring It is far from settled whether eating animals with BSE is a cause of vCJD. It is also widely suspected that cannibalistic feeding is a cause of BSE. While I don't have good cites for it right now, I believe the assertion should be restored until better documented. In your 3 citations, one is from a beef lobbying organization and is obviously POV, one is from the USDA, which is heavily lobbied by that same organization, and the lsat one discusses banning animal feeds because of the concern of BSE and vCJD. Dgies 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dgies, I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. I think we agree with each other, but there was another editor who recently removed the feedlot -> BSE/vCJD connection, not me. What I removed in May was unsourced language that asserted that there was a mistaken assumption that grass-fed beef had a lower risk than feedlot beef (that is, that feedlot beef, due to the possibility of cannibalism of beef nervous-system tissue, had a higher risk than grass-fed beef). The sources cited support that connection, and whatever you might feel about the USDA, I believe it to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. --MCB 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't meant personally. I recently made a revision adding info on the vCJD logic in favor of grass fed and Vpivet quickly reverted it. Looking ofer the changelog I took this to mean there was some "consensus" on the talk page to not list anything about BSE and vCDJ in this article. I guess all I'm saying is while I haven't properly cited, the cattle feed-BSE-vCDJ link is widely publicized enough to merit mention here. Dgies 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree entirely; your logic seems fine to me. Cheers, --MCB 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Dgies...I'm new and didn't realize this forum existed. Although I don't disagree with the proposed health benefits of grass fed beef, I do object to the including hot button vocab words like "factory farming" & "cannibalistsic." I was merely trying to bring some balance into what is a very one sided story. Perhaps this more recent change can be a compromise.

Sustainable Agriculture

I notice that this is in the sustainable agriculture category without comment. While raising cattle on grass is probably more sustainable than raising them on corn, it should be noted that in many countries pastures are heavily fertilised in order to maintain high stocking levels. Lisiate 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. In addition, care should be taken to show the pros and cons and the cases in which grass feeding might be more or less pragmatic than corn feeding or some combination. Lequis (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see information on how much water, fertilizer, etc, goes into each pound of free-range vs. grass/pasture-fed vs. corn/grain-feed beef. I have seen some estimates of that in other places. But not any good sources.

How much does each cost? What's the estimated cost of range depletion (run-off, degradation of land, etc)

How many pounds of grain do we spend to get one pound of beef?

~ender 2009-12-06 16:33:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.19.194 (talk)

generalizing

I've reworked and expanded this article to be on the debate between corn-fed vs grass-fed cattle, rather than just a one-sided argument for grass-fed beef. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-12 22:24Z

I've continued the trend set forth above by providing more background on the cattle industry and providing counter points to ensure a more balanced article. vpivet

Good. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 03:25Z

Removed dubious statements

I removed the following 2 dubious and unsourced statements (introduced by anonymous with this change):

• "Beef is the second most important source of Omega-3 fatty acids and other essential nutrients in western diets. " -- This is not true, as the article Omega-3 fatty acid clearly describes. In fact, it is one of the least important sources.
• "Grass-fed beef in many countries lacks the consistancy of grain-fed product, mostly due to the vagaries of weather in major broadacre cattle production countries like Brazil and Australia." -- I heard the opposite is true, but I can't cite a source for it just now. Unless we have a reliable source we should leave it out altogether.

Common Man 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Antibiotics

I clarified the usage of antibiotics and cited the risk factors involved in treatment of bovine respiratory disease, the most common disease for which antibitotics are prescribed. -vpivet

References

Reference #5: the html link goes nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.118.10 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Grass feeding and E. coli

A food safety expert commented on NPR that there is a common misconception that E. coli are not present in grass-fed cattle, and thus do not present a health risk. He said that the bacteria are present in approximately 10% of cattle, regardless of food type. This article cites a report from 2000 that allegedly confirms this, but it is possible that the state of scientific consensus has changed in the intervening years, or that the claim the article is making is not justified by the reference. Can someone who has access to the reference post a quote to verify? Someone will also need to check the state of scientific consensus, and make sure Wikipedia is getting the details right. (We could also contact this person directly and ask for supporting details and references.) -- Beland (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed weasel words, did language cleanup, and added citations in this section. --Sailor Titan (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Relative food values

In environmental discussions grain fed cattle and soy fed cattle are often cited as examples for inefficient use of resources. Numbers given are all over the place. It is likely that people will come to this page in search of information. We should put something here. Grain-fed cattle doesn't direct here from search, but the link at the bottom of this page is cyclical without clear identification of the relevant text. Needs some work. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and Sub Headings

The Intro was getting far too long and often vandalized - usually with respect to one facet of the page - i.e. USA cattle. Thus I have gone back to a useful, earlier and succinct version of the introduction, and then grouped up the sections in different headings - trying to separate out the country specific areas, and making areas that need updating (more data from Europe, Austriala , etc. - hopefully someone will be able to improve that section  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor blocked

User:Cattlefortune has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats and general disruption. You may now resume regular editing. Chillum 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In which case I've reverted it back to the one I re-jigged earlier (with the short introduction). There may still be elements that need removal and/or rewording.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The version you've changed to reads like a Wikipedia article in terms of intro style. The version you changed from did not. On the surface, that looks like a good change. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Concerns

I think that this section should be removed until it can be rewritten properly. As it currently stands, it is lacking citations and full of weasel words. It also provides a very incomplete picture of the environmental concerns related to cattle feeding, as it focuses only on the impact of grazing on riparian zones and ends up providing more information on riparian landscapes than on any impact of cattle grazing. In order to fully address environmental concerns, this section should also address the environmental concerns related to grain feeding, including the high energy requirements of producing grain feed as well as air and water pollution resulting from the concentration of wastes in feedlot operations. There are other environmental concerns associated with grazing as well, such as whether the grass has been treated with chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadingo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"where such zones may be the only tree-dominated ecosystems in the landscape[citation needed]"

Adding citation needed, in this case, is meant to disparage something which is *obvious*, when you go out of town, and look around the landscape.

Cottonwood, AZ and other places, the ones with any trees larger than shrubs, or spindly things like Ironwood or Palo Verde are, obviously, in places with water - or riparian areas.

You can say who and where, and what all you want. But next to nobody publishes what is obvious, and nobody seems to mention it where it can be cited.

Yes, there are issues with the focus on just riparian areas in this article. Yes, there issues to over-grazing semi-arid areas by eco-freaks. However, when people just try and put up citation needed, in order to stifle people from giving information, well...

~ender 2009-12-06 16:28:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.19.194 (talk)

Corn Fed

Growing up in rural Minnesota, I saw a number of small farm operations. When cattle were fed corn, they were fed the whole plant - ears, stalk, leaves, everything. This article's section on "corn fed" seems to imply that only the corn kernels are fed to the cattle. I'm not sure that is true or that the industry would waste the corn plant in that way, since cows can digest the cellulose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.88.14 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of omega 3

This This edit was reverted. I don't see how this falls until the category of synthesis. I was making the sentence more logical by including that fact that reduced linoleic acid and increased omega-3 consumption is healthy. Otherwise, when the reader sees that grass-fed beef has those properties, they do not understand why that is relevant. By adding another clause in the sentence to explain, the reader is not lost. There is a difference between constructing a logical sentence, and synthesis. To adamantly pursue the strict abolition of synthesis at the cost of logical and clarity in all situation is detrimental to the quality of the article. A proper balance must be achieved, and each situation must be evaluated on its individual costs and benefits. In this case, I believe the addition of another clause in the sentence to explain why decreased linoleic acid and increased omega-3 fatty acids is relevant. Mac520 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)