Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Grain-Fed vs. Grass-fed, confusion. page 3

  1. #21
    Pikaia's Avatar
    Pikaia is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2

    1

    Primal Fuel


    @chima_p: Is that a challenge? ;-) I love steak. I can out-steak my husband. I could be a steakavore. However, I rarely eat more than 14oz at a time.


  2. #22
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462

    1



    Aside from the difference in PUFAs I think that a major component of buying grass-fed is that the animals are much healthier being fed grass, eliminating the need for antibiotics, and a true pasture will have less chemicals and pesticides than grain feeding (unless the grain was organic but that never happens). I really wouldn't worry about smallert animals like chicken who would not bioaccumulate as much, but a cow is a huge animal who will eat a lot of grain over its life and bioaccumulate many more toxins. This is the same reason we eat salmon and sardines and shy away from tuna.

    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  3. #23
    buffalo's Avatar
    buffalo is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    25

    1



    Saying there is no difference between grass-fed and grain-fed is simply incorrect. The omega-3/6 balanace, as other already pointed out is one difference. An animal will replace it's omega-3 fat with omega-6 fat almost completely over a period of about 6 months, but you really don't want more than 6 weeks of grain finishing maximum. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is another big difference between grain-fed and grass-fed, from Wikipedia, "meat and dairy products from grass-fed animals can produce 300-500% more CLA than those of cattle fed the usual diet of 50% hay and silage, and 50% grain". It is hypothesized that this large difference in CLA is why some epidimological studies showed an increase in colon cancer from meat consumption, versus other studies which showed a decline: the difference in nutrients such as CLA from grass-fed vs grain-fed may make a significant difference.


    As for taste, I've heard that in Argentinia, the beef is all grass-fed (as grass-fed is cheaper to produce over grain-fed), and people will rave about it's taste. Maybe this is because of the very rich type of grasslands they range on, or maybe they have better preparation and cooking techniques, I don't know. Personally, I think buffalo tastes much better than cow, so grain-fed cow or grass-fed cow, it doesn't matter, it's still not as tasty as buffalo.


    However, the real reason to seek out and spend more on grass-fed animals is because agriculture is an incredibly destructive process. It is heavily dependant upon fossil fuel. In North America the top soil is being depleted 10 times faster than it's replenished. Fertilizer needs to be produced from natural gas, which is in limited supply. It requires massive amounts of water, and drains rivers, leaving only polluted water. The marshlands and ocean of the Gulf Coast used to be one of the most productive food ecosystems on the planet. Now there are massive dead zones where nothing lives, a direct result of the wastes products of agriculture flowing into the area. The erosion of top soil has been responsible for the destruction of civilizations in the past. Already in many parts of the world, modern industrial agriculture has created vast areas of desert from once fertile land. For example, Pakistan has lost 25% of it's arable land. Agriculture is many areas is also dependant upon fossil water: these are massive underground water supplies that are being drained to irrigate the land. These water supplies refill very slowly, so once they've been drained, they won't be usable again for millenia. Grain-fed animals produce methane gas, grass-fed animals are a net methane sink. If North America converted all of it's agricultural land back into natural state, it would become a net carbon sink ... even with all of our existing fossil fuel usage. Industrial agriculture is simply not sustainable, and while the wheels of modern agriculture appear to be chugging along producing ample food today, this system is one that will break down. We will run out of fuel, water, topsoil and negatively impact climate change in the coming years.


    If you are following the primal blueprint, then you may be thinking, "Hey, this is pretty awesome now that I can look forward to another 20-50 years of healthy life". But the reality is that you will likely outlive the sustainable run of modern industrial agriculture, and may end up dieing of starvation or worse once these systems deplete the resources that they are consuming.


  4. #24
    buffalo's Avatar
    buffalo is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    25

    1



    For a nice primer on why grass-fed is better than grain-fed, listen to a recent interview with Joel Salatin on UndergroundWellness radio:


    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/undergr...ith-joel-salat


  5. #25
    emmie's Avatar
    emmie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,299

    1

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification


    I buy only grass fed for my health and for the animal's well being. I try to avoid feedlot meat all the time.


    I enjoy bison as well as beef.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •