| Revision as of 15:56, 8 March 2009 editClueBot (talk | contribs)1,596,818 editsm Reverting possible vandalism by Cattlefortune to version by Badagnani. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (628739) (Bot)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:01, 8 March 2009 edit undoCattlefortune (talk | contribs)33 edits Until you quit modifying the corrected information for Cattle Feeding I will keep erasing this false information. If you continue with this propaganda there will be legal reprocussions.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| {{Weasel|date=March 2009}} | |||
| {{Intro-toolong|date=March 2009}} | |||
| {{World|date=March 2009}} | |||
| There are many segments of the cattle business. 1)''Seed Stock'', where producers breed for improved genetics; 2)''Cow/Calf'', where ranchers and farmers raise cows and calves for commercial production; 3)''Stocker/Grower'', where producers place light weight calves on pasture, wheat or corn stocks; 4) ''Grow yards/Back Grounding'' facilities, where high forage diets are fed to light weight feeder calves weighing 350 to 500 pounds to be fed to the weight of 750 to 900 pounds, and 5) ''Custom/Commercial Finishing'' yards, where cattle are fed to harvest at the weight of 1000 to 1500 pounds. Once the fed cattle are sold for harvest they are shipped to the Packer for processing and distribution to the consumer. | |||
| According to the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A) there are approximately 25,000,000 to 33,000,000 million head of fed cattle that move through Custom and Comercial Cattle Feedyards annually. A "Cattle on Feed Report" is available for producers and consumers to view on a semi-annual basis provided by the U.S.D.A. | |||
| The Fed Cattle enterprise is a fairly large industry where millions of dollars move through these Custom and Private cattle feeding facilities every year. The business of feeding cattle is based on a commodity market mechanism. Both the corn and the cattle are bought and sold via commodity market prices. This makes for huge variations within the final outcome of profit and loss within the enterprise. However, The Chicago Mercantile Exchange(CME) provides producers with price protection in the form of Options or Hedges preventing much loss and volitility with the final outcome of the cattle feeding enterprise. Additionally, forward contracts and pre-paying for feedstuffs also conteracts the variables in both raw commodities. | |||
| There are other tools producers utilize such as participating in Niche Markets. Niche Markets include Organic, Natural, Grass Fed, Source Verified aimed at different consumers. Niche Markets attribute to a small percentage of cattle harvested, processed and distributed to consumers nationally and internationally. | |||
| Grass Fed or pasture-fed cattle, grass and other forage compose most all or at least the great majority of the grass fed diet. The debate is whether ] should be raised on diets primarily composed of ] (grass) or a concentrated diet of grain, soy and other supplements. The issue is often complicated by the political interests and confusion between labels such as "]", "]", or "]". Cattle raised on a primarily forage diet are termed ''grass-fed'' or ''pasture-raised''; for example meat or milk may be called ''grass-fed beef'' or ''pasture-raised dairy''. However, the term "pasture-raised" can lead to confusion with the term "]", which does not describe exactly what the animals eat. | |||
| In the ], cattle in ]s (CAFOs) are typically fed ], soy and other types of feed that can include "by-product feedstuff". As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle. These cattle are called ''corn-fed'' or ''grain-fed''. In the United States, most grass fed cattle are raised for beef production. Dairy cattle are usually supplemented with grain to increase the efficiency of production and reduce the area needed to support the energy requirements of the herd. A growing number of health and environmental proponents {{Who|date=March 2009}} in the United States such as the ] advocate raising cattle on pasture and other ]. Some{{Who|date=September 2008}} claim that the adoption of a grass-fed beef production system would dramatically increase the amount of land needed to raise beef. ], NSW sale.]] | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Health and Nutrition== | |||
| ===Fats=== | |||
| Most grass-fed cattle are leaner than feedlot beef, lacking marbling, which lowers the fat content and caloric level of the meat. Meat from grass-fed cattle also have higher levels of ] (CLA) and the ]s ALA, EPA, and DHA.<ref name="Greener PDF">http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/greener-pastures.pdf, p. 58</ref> | |||
| While the research on CLA is unclear with regard to humans, it has shown many positive effects in animals in the areas of heart disease, cancer, and the immune system{{Fact|date=September 2008}}. | |||
| ===Antibiotics=== | |||
| Less intense population density is sometimes cited {{Who|date=September 2008}} as a reason for decreased ] usage in grass-fed animals. However, bovine respiratory disease, the most common cause for antibiotic therapy has risk factors common in both forms of production (feedlot and pasture finished).<ref>The medicine and epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease in feedlots. | |||
| Australian veterinary journal Cusack 2003 vol:81 iss:8 pg:480-487 </ref> | |||
| In dairy herds, grazed cattle typically have a reduced need for antibiotics relative to grain-fed cattle, simply because the grazed herds are less productive{{Fact|date=September 2008}}. A high-energy feedlot diet greatly increases milk output, measured in pounds or kilograms of milk per head per day, but it also increases animal physiological stress,{{Fact|date=September 2008}} which in turn causes a higher incidence of mastitis and other infectious disease, more frequently requiring antibiotic therapy. | |||
| Antibiotics are routinely added to grain feed as a growth stimulant. Cattle consume 70% of the antiobiotics in the United States.<ref>Mellon, M ''et al''. (2001) ''Hogging It!: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock'', 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: ].</ref> This practice widely contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including ].<ref>Our Decrepit Food Factories. New York Times Pollan December 16, 2007 </ref> Where MRSA once was contained to rare cases in hospitals, it is now becoming community-acquired due to its emergence in the feedlot{{Fact|date=September 2008}}. This poses a major public health threat. | |||
| ==Disease== | |||
| ===''E. coli''=== | |||
| ], although considered ] for many mammals including humans, has many ]. Strain ] is associated with human illness and death as a ]. A study by Cornell University <ref>Russel, James B. ''Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition.'' (Ithaca, NY: self published, 2002.)</ref> has determined that grass-fed animals have as much as 80% less ''E. coli'' in their stomachs than their grain fed counterparts, though this reduction could be achieved by switching an animal to grass only a few days prior to slaughter. Also, the amount of ''E. coli'' they do have is much less likely to survive our first line defense against infection, stomach acid. This is because feeding cattle grain makes their digestive tract abnormally acidic; over time, the pathogenic E. coli has become acid-resistant. <ref>Pollan, Michael. ''The Omnivore's Dilemma''. (New York: Penguin Press, 2006.) 82. </ref> If humans ingest this acid-resistant E. Coli via grain-feed beef, a large number of them can potentially survive in the stomach, causing an infection. <ref>Russel, J.B., F. Diez-Gonzalez, and G. N. Jarvis, "Potential Effect of Cattle Diets on Transmission of Pathogenic Eschericia Coli to Humans" ''Microbes Infect'' 2, No.1 (2000) :45-53</ref> Since the Cornell study in 1998 many groups{{Which?|date=September 2008}} have contested the results. A study by the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln Nebraska(2000) has confirmed the Cornell research.<ref> Tony Scott Klopfenstein, T., ''et al''. '' 2000 Nebraska Beef Report'',:39-41 PFD at eatwild.com</ref>{{Dubious|date=September 2008}} | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| ] can be a risk factor for ] (BSE), when healthy animals consume tainted tissues from infected animals. People concerned about ] (CJD), which is also a spongiform encephalopathy, may favor grass-fed cattle for this reason. In the United States, this risk is relatively low as feeding of protein sources from any ruminant to another ruminant has been banned since 1997.<ref></ref> The problem becomes more complicated as other feedstuffs containing animal by-products are still allowed to be fed to other non-ruminants (chickens, cats, dogs, horses, pigs, etc.). Therefore, at a feed mill mixing feed for pigs, for instance, there is still the possibility of cross-contamination of feed going to cattle.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Since only a tiny amount of the contaminating ] begins the cascading brain disease, any amount of mixed feed could cause many animals to become infected.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} This was the only traceable link among the cattle with BSE in Canada that led to the recent US embargo of Canadian beef {{Fact|date=September 2008}}. BSE does not occur in Australia. | |||
| Soybean meal is cheap and plentiful in the ]. As a result, the use of animal byproduct feeds was never common, as it was in Europe. However, U.S. regulations only partially prohibit the use of animal byproducts in feed. In 1997, regulations prohibited the feeding of mammalian byproducts to ]s such as cows and goats. However, the byproducts of ruminants can still be legally fed to pets or other livestock such as pigs and poultry such as chickens. In addition, it is legal for ruminants to be fed byproducts from some of these animals. A proposal {{Weasel-inline|date=March 2009}} <!--who proposed this--> to end the use of cow blood, restaurant scraps, and ] (fecal matter, feathers)<!--The term "chicken litter" also includes spilled chicken feed as well as fecal matter and feathers. It is still legal in the United States to use ruminant protein to feed chickens. Thus, ruminant protein can get into the food chain of cattle in this round about way.--> in January 2004 has yet to be implemented , despite the efforts of some advocates of such a policy{{Who|date=September 2008}}, who cite the fact that cows are herbivores, and that blood and fecal matter could potentially carry BSE. | |||
| In ], the ] reported that the ], which is responsible for regulating feed, had not adequately policed the various bans. Compliance with the regulations was shown to be extremely poor before the discovery of the Washington cow, but industry representatives report that compliance is now 100%. Even so, critics {{Who|date=September 2008}} call the partial prohibitions insufficient. Indeed, US meat producer ] alleges that the ] is preventing BSE testing from being conducted . | |||
| ===Campylobacter=== | |||
| ], a bacterium that can cause another ] resulting in nausea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, headache and muscle pain was found by Australian researchers to be carried by 58% of cattle raised in feed lots versus only 2% of pasture raised and finished cattle.<ref>Bailey,G. D.,B. A. Vanselow,''et al.''(2003). "A study of the Food Borne Pathogens: Campylobacter, Listeria and Yersinia, in faeces from slaughter-age cattle and sheep in Australia." ''Commun Dis Intell'' 27(2):249-57</ref> | |||
| ==Environmental concerns== | |||
| In arid climates such as the Southwestern United States, livestock grazing has severely degraded riparian areas, the wetland environment adjacent to rivers or streams. People {{Who|date=September 2008}} have long recognized that riparian zones and rivers are the lifeblood of the western landscape,{{Fact|date=September 2008}} being more productive and home to more plants and animals than any other type of habitat {{Fact|date=September 2008}}. Scientists {{Who|date=September 2008}} refer to riparian zones as hotspots of ], a characterization that is particularly apparent in arid and semiarid environments{{Fact|date=September 2008}}, where such zones may be the only tree-dominated ecosystems in the landscape{{Fact|date=September 2008}}. The presence of water, increased productivity, favorable microclimate, and periodic flood events combine to create a disproportionately higher biological diversity than that of the surrounding uplands.<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_lifeblood_west.htm |title=Lifeblood of the West |accessdate=2007-08-08 |last=Kauffman, |first=J. Boone, Ph.D. }}</ref> | |||
| == Taste == | |||
| The cow's diet affects the flavor of the resultant meat and milk. A 2003 ] study<ref>Wendy Umberger, Dawn Thilmany and Amanda Ziehl, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economicse, Colorado State University. 2003. "Consumer Tastes & Preferences: | |||
| What Research Indicates". http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/aft/curriculum/3.1_cons_prefs.ppt</ref> found that 80% of consumers in the Denver-Colorado area preferred the taste of United States corn-fed beef to ]n grass-fed beef, and negligible difference in taste preference compared to ] barley-fed beef. | |||
| Grass-fed beef is not standardized. Most is leaner than conventional feedlot beef, but some is equally ] due to carefully managed grazing, excellent pastures, and improved genetics. Another technique for producing well-marbled grass-fed cattle is to keep the animals on pasture for two years or more. Most pasture-based ranchers dry-age the beef for 7-21 days, enhancing the flavor and tenderness of the meat.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} | |||
| == USDA label== | |||
| The ]'s ] (AMS) released a revised proposal for a grass fed meat label claim for its process-verified labeling program in May 2006. | |||
| <ref> | |||
| {{cite web | |||
| | last = Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA | |||
| | title = United States Standard for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claim, Grass (Forage) Fed Claim | |||
| | work = The Federal Register | |||
| | publisher = | |||
| | date = 2006-05-12 | |||
| | url = http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-7276.htm | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-08-02 }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| The ], which in general supports the labeling proposal, claims that the current revision, which contains the clause "consumption of ... grain in the immature stage is acceptable", allows for "feed harvesting or stockpiling methods that might include significant amounts of grain" because the term "immature" is not clearly defined. | |||
| <ref> | |||
| {{cite web | |||
| | last = Clancy | |||
| | first = Kate | |||
| | authorlink = www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/greener-pastures-author-bio.html | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = What's At Stake? | |||
| | work = | |||
| | publisher = Union of Concerned Scientists | |||
| | date = presumably 2006-08-02 | |||
| | url = http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_2_06_grassfed_standard/explanation | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-08-02 }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| On ], ] the USDA established a standard definition for the "grass fed" claim which requires continuous access to pasture and prevents animals from being fed grain or grain-based products.<ref></ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||