by Ashley E. Mason on January 3, 2011
A recent study in the British Journal of Nutrition demonstrated the benefits of grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef. Many of us have heard that grass-fed meats are superior to grain-fed meats for a variety of reasons, and demand for grass-fed beef is definitely increasing. Environmentalists tell us that mass-production of corn for the purpose of feeding animals in confined feeding operations (CAFOs) is bad for the topsoil. Moralists tell us that forcing cattle to live in these conditions is inhumane. Nutritionists (well, nutrition scientists, there is a big difference there!) tell us that feeding cattle grain obliterates the fatty-acid composition of the meat such that instead of having an omega 6 / omega 3 ratio of 2 or 3 to 1 (as it would when pastured), the ratio skyrockets. Nutrition researchers report that grain-fed meat is fattier and less nutrient-dense than than grass-fed meat (see citations on the eatwild page for peer-reviewed research, and another study here). To be sure, the grain-fed cattle industry has not wanted this kind of research to come forth, and they’ve even gone so fat as to declare that grass-fed meats contain more trans-fatty acids than grain-fed meats. The grain-fed cattle industry, of course, neglects to mention, however, that conjugated linoleic acid (classified as a trans fat, but it is naturally occurring) is among the most promising anti-carcinogenic compounds that we know of.
Importantly, there is a growing consensus that it is the last weeks of a cow’s life that make the difference in this lipid profile. Specifically, if one feeds a cattle grass all of its life but grain for the last few weeks of its life, the beneficial lipid profile will deteriorate to that of a cattle who was grain fed for its entire life. The opposite also holds: If you feed a cattle grain all of its life and then grass for the last few weeks of its life, the beneficial lipid profile appears. Hence the term, “grass-finished.”
The study? Researchers wanted to know if eating grass-finished animals instead of grain-finished animals would provide a significant increase in omega 3 in the animal meat and if this increase would actually make a difference in blood counts of those consuming the meat. Two groups of Irish people (all with good cholesterol and blood pressure numbers and without any prescription medications) were given weekly portions of beef and lamb, either grass-finished or grain-finished. The animals were “finished” for a minimum of six weeks. Both groups were told to avoid fatty fish and oils rich in omega 3 for the duration of the study. Both groups of people ate roughly 469 grams of red meat a week for four weeks.
Data indicated that grass-finished meat experienced improved plasma and platelet fatty acid composition such that their blood contained less omega-6 and more omega-3. This increase in omega 3 is associated with a more balanced inflammatory response and subsequent better health.
Other important findings: Lipid profiles of the meat-eaters did not significantly differ (HDL, LDL, triglycerides). The serum and platelet fatty acid content was what changed. Those who consumed grass-finished meat experienced higher levels of EPA, DPA, DHA, stearic acid, long-chain omega 3 fatty acids, and total omega 3, along with a reduced omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. Importantly, the omega 6 to omega 3 ratios in our fat cells determine what kind of inflammatory cytokines our platelets will secrete in an inflammatory response, so having too much omega 6 in our platelets results in an unhealthy, overly-inflammatory response.
Of course, at the end of the day, fatty fish still reign king (wild-caught salmon, and other wild fish) with respect to omega 3 content.
Read the study in the British Journal of Nutrition here.
by Ashley E. Mason on November 28, 2010
First, I must state that I was a vegetarian for roughly three years, from ages 20 – 23. I did not eat red meat (or much of any animal products) until this past summer, 2010, when I became aware of the option to buy locally raised, grassfed beef. In no way to I condone feedlot or CAFO animal operations.
Keith opens The Vegetarian Myth stating that “For many of you, it won’t be an easy book to read. I know. I was a vegan for almost twenty years. I know the reasons that compelled me to embrace an extreme diet and they are honorable, ennobling even. Reasons like justice, compassion, a desperate and all-encompassing longing to set the world right” (p. 1). My jaw dropped page after page while reading this book, which I did in September of 2010. It has taken me this long to write the review because checking a bunch of the sources and people she cites throughout the book was a time-consuming endeavor. The book, which is divided into three sections (Moral Vegetarians, Political Vegetarians, and Nutritional Vegetarians), is a book in which it is ok to skip around. She cites research, farmers and other agricultural experts, scientists, and physicians throughout, although I would have preferred more straightforward bibliographic citation style.
This controversial book presents an historical account of the destructive nature agriculture. Agriculture as we know it has led to the devastation of prairies and forests, driven countless species extinct, changed the climate, and pillaged the topsoil. Keith believes that in order to save our earth, we need to procure our food from within our own communities – essentially, she makes the “locavorian” argument: Build relationships with local food producers, and obtain food from them. She also does an excellent job of describing the risks of vegan diets, and makes compelling arguments about how the health of the soil affects the plants, the non-human animals, and of course, us humans.
Here, I’ll present a few of the juicy (read: controversial, fire-igniting) tidbits.
The Fertile Crescent, Keith explains, was indeed fertile at one point in time. In the words of Mark Sisson, “Animals grazed on perennial grasses, pooped out nutrients, and gradually those nutrients would work themselves back into the soil. It was a beautiful, natural life cycle that worked great for millennia.” Now? It is a desert. Mono-crop grain agriculture changed everything – People replaced perennial renewable grasses with annual grains, flooding and riverbeds were forever altered, and animals were cleared from the land. The top soil – which Keith argues is the most crucial measure of the planet’s health – eroded by the foot. Animals provide key nutrients to soil – and Keith details her voyage to discover what soil needs most to reach health – and in the end, discovers death. Soil, by nature, is healthiest when it both provides for, and receives the remains of, the animals who live on it.
According to Keith, annual grain crops have killed the North American Prairie, in addition to entire ecosystems and millions of animals, bugs, and birds. That soy burger? The machines that harvested and processed those soybeans were essentially oiled with the blood of thousands of organisms. Soy, as a crop, was initially farmed to improve the soil – and not for human consumption. For all intensive purposes, giving a baby a bottle of soymilk is akin to giving the baby a couple of birth control pills. Soy, as we eat it today, may as well be an industrial byproduct – not fit for human consumption.
I’ve provided just a taste of what I’ve gleaned from this book, and I’m eager to hear your thoughts – especially the thoughts of vegans and vegetarians. Thus far I’ve broached the subject with one such person – who sticks to statistics about how much water it takes to feed cattle, how much oil it takes to ship meat. Unfortunately, there was no consideration of how much water it takes to grow rice, and how much oil it takes to maintain a mono-crop agricultural environment… I’ll reiterate – I do not condone the feedlot animal operations described in various books, such as Food Inc, Omnivore’s dilemma, and Eating Animals.
You can read the first 14 pages of the book on Keith’s website.
