Grass-fed beef: What’s (not) in it for you (Part II)

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about some of the benefits of grass-fed beef. There I focused on the fatty acids and vitamins that grass-fed beef contains in greater quantities than grain-fed beef. In this post I want to mention a few things that you won’t find in grass-fed beef.

One thing to point out is that not all grass-fed beef is the same and not all grain-fed beef is all the same. In a previous post the numbers I gave were averages from a variety of grass-fed and grain-fed samples. In this context, though, I think it is important to do a bit more distinguishing.

The biggest contrast in nutritional value of grass-fed and grain-fed beef lies between a rotationally-grazed grass-fed operation (like ours!) and a commercial feed lot. In the feedlots it is standard practice to include antibiotics in the feed. The antibiotics are used in such contexts because cattle cannot properly digest the grains which make up the majority of their feed. The grain diet often causes the cattle to develop abscesses in their livers and as a preventative measure feed-lots will include antibiotics in the feed. One counterpoint to this concern is that the farmers are supposed to stop giving antibiotics long enough before slaughter for the antibiotics to leave the system and not remain in the meat. Then at the packing facility the USDA tests the meat for antibiotics. However, the meat doesn’t need to be antibiotic free, it just needs to be below the level considered harmful by the USDA.

Only in the last couple of years did the FDA ban the use antibiotics for “non-therapeutic” reasons. “Non-therapeutic” essentially means using antibiotics as a growth stimulant. But drawing the line between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use is easier said than done.  And it is difficult to enforce. Of course, grass-fed cattle can also receive whatever amount of antibiotics a farmer or veterinarian wants to give them. This is where it’s necessary to know who is raising your food and what the farmer’s practices are.

Similarly, feed-lot operators will also implant steroid hormones in the ear tissue to encourage more rapid growth. These hormones have a zero-day withdrawal period, meaning the implant may still be releasing the hormone right up to slaughter. As with the use of antibiotics, the FDA has ruled these to be safe for human consumption at certain levels. What I haven’t been able to find is why they are considered safe at those levels or who funded and who executed the research determining the safe levels.

Grain-fed beef, especially feed-lot beef where grain consumption is highest, also brings with it the concerns surrounding genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The main concern, at least to my mind, with GMOs is the presence of the herbicide/pesticide used on the crops. A growing body of evidence suggests that such sprays (particularly those containing glyphosate) cause significant damage to our organs (not to mention the ecology with which it comes into contact). It is possible, but not easy, to find a farm that uses non-gmo or organic grains, and there’s no way of knowing unless you know the farm where the beef is coming from.

Certainly the effects of all these synthetic chemicals in our food are not demonstrably known. But considering what we do know about the effects of antibiotics, hormones, and glyphosate on the human body I think it’s reasonable to think they harm our health.

Knowing that the beef we raise and eat is clean of these chemicals, and more nutrient dense than most beef, is part of the satisfaction we derive in doing this work.