Thursday, May 31, 2012

Switching to Grass-Fed Beef - NYTimes.com

Switching to Grass-Fed Beef - NYTimes.com:

'via Blog this'

Switching to Grass-Fed Beef

"New research from California State University in Chico breaks it down, reviewing three decades of research comparing the nutritional profiles of grass-fed and grain-fed beef.
Over all, grass-fed beef comes out ahead, according to the report in the latest Nutrition Journal. Beef from grass-fed animals has lower levels of unhealthy fats and higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are better for cardiovascular health. Grass-fed beef also has lower levels of dietary cholesterol and offers more vitamins A and E as well as antioxidants. The study found that meat from animals raised entirely on grass also had about twice the levels of conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, isomers, which may have cancer fighting properties and lower the risk of diabetes and other health problems.
While the analysis is favorable to grass-fed beef, it’s not clear whether the nutritional differences in the two types of meat have any meaningful impact on human health. For instance, the levels of healthful omega-3s are still far lower than those found in fatty fish like salmon. And as the study authors note, consumers of grain-fed beef can increase their levels of healthful CLAs by eating slightly fattier cuts.
Grass-fed beef has a distinctly different and “grassy” flavor compared with feed-lot beef and also costs more. A recent comparison in The Village Voice cooked up one-pound grass-fed and grain-fed steaks. The grass-fed meat tasted better, according to the article, but at $26 a pound, also cost about three times more.
Today all cattle are typically raised on grass in the early months of their lives. But in the 1950s, cattle raisers hoping to cut costs and improve efficiency of beef production began to ship the animals to feed lots, where they could be fattened more quickly on inexpensive and high-calorie grains. Grain feeding also increased intramuscular fat in the animals. The result was a marbling effect that made meat more flavorful and tender but also raised fat and cholesterol levels.
Advocates of pasture-raised beef say the reasons to switch go beyond nutrition. The animal is raised in a more humane fashion that is also better for the environment. And 100-percent grass-fed animals typically aren’t given hormones or antibiotics. The Web site EatWild.com has more information about the environmental effects of commercial farming and ranching practices and the benefits of pasture-raising.
The New York Times writer Marian Burros explored the taste difference in “There’s More to Like About Grass-Fed Beef.”
Labels on grass-fed beef can be misleading, and some meat carrying a “grass-fed” label was still “finished” on grains at a feed lot. Meats carrying a U.S. Department of Agriculture “process verified shield” adhere to specific standards for grass feeding, although Mother Earth News reports that a label from the American Grassfed Association is better. To learn more about labeling on grass-fed meat read the full Mother Earth article, “The Label Says Grass-Fed, But Is It?” or go to the American Grassfed Association Web site.

From 1 to 25 of 145 Comments

1 2 3 ... 6 
  1. 1.March 11, 201012:58 pmLink
    Great article! I’m a big fan of grass-fed beef and get mine locally in the Houston area. Watch Food Inc. or read The Omnivore’s Dilemma and there’s no turning back. Thanks again for the post!
    — Jenny Perot
  2. 2.March 11, 201012:59 pmLink
    I feel like it is also important to note that grass-fed/free range beef is not without its own set of environmental issues. To be sure, a free-range cow is preferable to a CAFO cow. However, land management practices used by many ranchers and the BLM are not always sustainable, and contribute greatly to erosion, water pollution, and invasive species, particularly in the west. It becomes a matter of greater public concern when you consider the fact that many of these unsustainable practices are taking place on publicly owned land (again, most notably in the west, where the BLM has control over large parcels of land).
    So if you’re switching to grass-fed beef for environmental reasons, I applaud you, but urge you to still be aware of the source. There are ranchers out there who make a point to practice sustainable methods.
    — Emily
  3. 3.March 11, 201012:59 pmLink
    Grass fed beef costs three times more. Seems to me that people can buy regular beef and then spend the difference on green leafy vegetables. That I bet would be far healthier overall for the same cost.
    — Fred Johnson
  4. 4.March 11, 20101:27 pmLink
    The difference in taste is profound. It reminds me of what beef tasted like when I was a kid – which was in the 1960′s – so I’m guessing our almost-total conversion to “grain-fed” didn’t really happen until sometime after the 1950′s.
    Although the fancy grass-fed steaks may cost $12-20 a pound, grass fed chuck steak or ground beef seems to run around $5 a pound in my neck of the woods, which seems quite affordable. Plus, since they actually grind it in-store and don’t get it from the processors, the hamburger never tastes like ammonia!
    — Nick
  5. 5.March 11, 20101:41 pmLink
    There is also the issue that a lot of the bacterial contamination in beef can be attributed to the unnatural grain-only diet used in feedlots. In fact, I’ve heard it proposed that cows be switched back to a more normal diet for a week or so before slaughter as a way to reduce bacterial contamination.
    — David
  6. 6.March 11, 20101:53 pmLink
    Out in Texas there’s no bad smell driving by grass-fed cattle ranches. You can smell a California feedlot several towns over if the wind is blowing the right direction.
    — Nic
  7. 7.March 11, 20101:57 pmLink
    Cattle are meant to eat grass, and tons of it. Cows nor humans are meant to absorb tons of pesticides and hormones. We wonder why there’s such a high rate of cancer in our nation…
    — FoodFitnessFreshair"

No comments:

Post a Comment