Does it matter what fat you eat?

[chocchillimango]

You are wrong, grass feed is very common in Australia organic or not. You are way outside your area of expertise here.

I stand corrected and concede your point.

but Bazz, there was no need to be so nasty before. we're all just trying to help each other out here, right?

 

[IRON TANKS]

I basically marinate in Olive Oil all day.

The type of fat makes a large difference to your health.

Avocados, fatty fish, peanut butter, walnuts all make a weekly appearance for me. I do enjoy my organic butter, but it's so delicious moderation makes it difficult so I tend not to stock it regularly.

 

[Bazza20]

I stand corrected and concede your point.

but Bazz, there was no need to be so nasty before. we're all just trying to help each other out here, right?

Sorry not meaning to be nasty. Just passionate about this and it may have come across that way. The organic thing always pisses me off because the basis of there marketing is that organic is somehow better for the animals, land and the product is better than conventional grown food when there is no reason why it would be and no evidence of it. And now organic is trying to attach itself to grassfed.

The whole gassfed thing can be very misleading as well. It is not just as simple as grass = good, grains = bad, especially not from an animal health point of view. There are many situations were grass can kill animals.

 

[chocchillimango]

Sorry not meaning to be nasty. Just passionate about this and it may have come across that way. The organic thing always pisses me off because the basis of there marketing is that organic is somehow better for the animals, land and the product is better than conventional grown food when there is no reason why it would be and no evidence of it. And now organic is trying to attach itself to grassfed.

The whole gassfed thing can be very misleading as well. It is not just as simple as grass = good, grains = bad, especially not from an animal health point of view. There are many situations were grass can kill animals.

I totally agree with you. Farming practices + climate + lots of other stuff = much more complex issues than organic or grassfed being better.
Although there has been a lot of evidence for greater levels of naturally occurring CLAs in grassfed beef and to some extent dairy. Whether that makes grassfed better all round or only in the context of the farming practices used by the producers used for the studies ... well, there you go

For the average person making a choice when shopping, all that complexity is overwhelming. Unless you are out there living on the farm, it's hard to make an informed choice beyond the simplistic.

 

[Darkoz]

Mention 'organic' and Bazza bursts a blood vessel.

 

[Jay]

Hmm, interesting. You learn something new every day-and-a-half.

I'll try and find a study, just to make sure I'm not talking out of my butt unintentionally... but I'm pretty sure I'm recalling it right.

Edit: Well, here's one for a start... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19935865

VA [vaccenic acid] is the only known dietary precursor of c9,t11 conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), but recent data suggest that consumption of this trans fat may impart health benefits beyond those associated with CLA.

not all of them are. But you're frankly better off having a little fresh real butter than a margarine made from sunflower oil in the interest of long term health.

for body recomp, it doesn't matter at all.

Yeah, I agree. I only buy it on occasion for toast and things, because I don't like the general taste of the butter here. If I run into the same dilemma in Aussieland, it'd be nice to have a decent enough alternative.

 

[sucram]

Sorry not meaning to be nasty. Just passionate about this and it may have come across that way. The organic thing always pisses me off because the basis of there marketing is that organic is somehow better for the animals, land and the product is better than conventional grown food when there is no reason why it would be and no evidence of it. And now organic is trying to attach itself to grassfed.

The whole gassfed thing can be very misleading as well. It is not just as simple as grass = good, grains = bad, especially not from an animal health point of view. There are many situations were grass can kill animals.

Actually Bazza, YOU are WRONG. Most commercial meat in Australia (and the rest of the western world) is not 100% grass fed. Most cows are grass fed for the majority of their life and then switch to grain feeding for the last 60-90 days before slaughter - that is not true grass fed. In fact I can find only two grass fed suppliers in all of Victoria (and they are both biodynamic farmers).

You are also dead wrong about it not being clear that grass is healthier for ruminant animals than grain. You clearly have not read any of the clinical studies on the subject. First of all, its just plain common sense, ruminant animals eat grass in the wild - not grain. Secondly, clinical investigation has proven that grass fed beef have a healthier fatty acid composition, such as -
-Omega 3s in beef that feed on grass is 7% of the total fat content, compared to 1% in grain-only fed beef.
- if the ratio of omega 6 fats to omega 3 fats exceeds 4:1, people have more health problems. This is especially meaningful since grain-fed beef can have ratios that exceed 20:1 whereby grass-fed beef is down around 3:1.
-Grass-fed beef is loaded with other natural minerals and vitamins, plus it's a great source of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) a fat that reduces the risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders. In fact, grass fed meat can have 3 to 5 times as much CLA as grain fed meat.
Clinical studies reflect these facts, for example -

-North Dakota State University conducted a study on the nutritional differences between grass-fed and grain-fed bison. The results of that study closely followed that of the egg studies. The grass-fed bison had omega 6 to omega 3 ratios of 4.0 to one, and the grain-fed bison had ratios of 21 to one.


-One study, published in J Anim Sci 2000 Nov;78(11):2849-55 came to this conclusion -
"The concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in fat was higher (P < .05) for steers offered ration 5 than for those given any other ration. Decreasing the proportion of concentrate in the diet, which effectively increased grass intake, caused a linear decrease in the concentration of saturated fatty acids (SFA) (P < .01) and in the n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio (P < .001) and a linear increase in the PUFA:SFA ratio (P < .01) and the conjugated linoleic acid concentration (P < .001). The data indicate that i.m. fatty acid composition of beef can be improved from a human health perspective by inclusion of grass in the diet.

-another study published in J Anim Sci 1996 Mar;74(3):625-38 had this to say -
" Final BW and carcass characteristics in all cattle were improved by full season grazing followed by feeding corn silage, compared with cattle finished with grain on pasture"

-

 

[kaz]

Wtf?
Strong first post......

 

[Shrek]

Welcome to AusBB.

 

[sucram]

very wrong here again. You are wrongly assuming organic farming does not use chemicals. Organic farms can and do use chemicals they just have to be to be natural chemicals and as we know just because it is natural does not make is safe or better. Quite often the chemicals used by "industrial farming" are safer and more effective synthetic versions of these natural occurring chemicals organic farmers use

You are falling for the naturalistic fallacy of organic. The science behind the benefits is just not there. Organic is just a feel good marketing ploy.[/QUOTE]


Again, you make grand statements while providing no evidence. What organic chemicals are you referring to?
I will admit there is a lot of controversy over whether or not organic is a healthier food choice. One of the reason is that there are different standards of organic (Biodynamic being the most superior). Compounding the issue, some foods are labelled organic without even being ceritified organic at all!
Noentheless, this is what the scientific evidence have to say (note the actual use of citations and references to back up my claims )

-A recent meta-analysis by Stanford University3 has received widespread media coverage, and with few exceptions, conventional media outlets have used it to cast doubt on the value of an organic diet. The New York Times4, for example, declared "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce," and Fox News' headline claimed "organic food may not be worth the money."5
An editorial in The Los Angeles Times6 bravely bucked the trend, stating "Stanford's research showing that organic produce probably isn't any more nutritious than the conventional variety is mostly remarkable for what it omitted."
In a nutshell, the meta-analysis, which looked at 240 reports comparing organically and conventionally grown food (including 17 human studies), DID find that organic foods ARE safer, and probably healthier than conventional foods—if you are of the conviction that ingesting fewer toxins is healthier and safer for you.

According to the authors:7​

"...Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. ​

The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, -37% to -23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small
...the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])...​

-​

"...Stanford researchers failed to review reports not written in English... and if the study consists of just comparing notes across a series of studies then the researchers did not meet their due diligence... My colleagues at newhope360 compiled their own review in a matter of minutes of articles that were easy to find and also written in English. But our findings were considerably different from Stanford's.

1. The Organic Center, reliant on donations and industry funding, is in the midst of conducting an actual study on organic vs. conventional vs. natural grain. Not yet complete, they have already determined organic grains are more nutritious.9 And by 'nutritious' they do mean 'more nutrient-rich.'
2. A 2010 study conducted by PloS ONE10, and partially funded by the USDA, found organic strawberries to be more nutrient-rich than non-organic strawberries.
3. In 2009, the American Association for the Advancement of Science featured a presentation on soil health and its impact on food quality.11,12 Conclusion: Healthy soil leads to higher levels of nutrients in crops.

Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted their own behavioral study that found higher risk of ADHD in children with higher levels of organophospates (pesticides)."13​

Other studies comparing organics and conventional foods have shown the reduction in toxic exposure may be even greater than that. Suppversity writes:​

"...[R]esearchers... at the University of Stuttgart set out with a whole different research question than most of their colleagues. Rather than trying to answer loosely defined questions such as 'What's better: conventional or organic?', they wanted to know whether or not it would even be possible to 'produce organic' in an environment that is already profoundly polluted; and... after 10 years and ten-thousands of samples of organic and conventional fruits, vegetables and animal products being analyzed the answer is 'Yes it is!'
​

'Organic fruits and vegetables had on average 180 times lower pesticide content than conventional products; and only 5 percent of the samples from organic produce were objectionable.' That's the conclusion the researchers in the 10-years special report that has been published in July 2012 (MLR. 2012b)."



3 Annals of Internal Medicine September 4, 2012; 157(5)
4 New York Times September 3, 2012
5 Fox News September 4, 2012
6 Los Angeles Times September 5, 2012
7 See ref 3
8 Newhope360.com September 5, 2012
9 The Organic Center, A Closer Look at What’s in Our Daily Bread report
10 Reganold JP, Andrews PK, Reeve JR, Carpenter-Boggs L, Schadt CW, et al. (2010) Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosy
11 The Organic Center, AAAS Session 2009 -- "Living Soil, Food Quality and the Future of Food", February 2009
12 Newhope360.com February 27, 2009
13 Pediatrics May 17, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

​

 

[kaz]

Wow, you can Google.

 

[chocchillimango]

welcome sucram

 

[sucram]

thanks choc

Yes Kaz, I can google, I can also read, research and inform myself, the fact that the internet has made that task easier is irrelevant to the veracity of my contention.

 

[sucram]

...You were being sarcastic right Kaz? If not I apologise

 

[wingman]

I think bazza's evidence is what actually occurs on his farm and nearby ones

 

[Undercover]

People are so lazy these days. And everyone wants this pretty picture of their "beef" being a happy cow running free and wild in open green plains, being lovingly bathed and cared for by farmer Joe.

 

[nazzysmith]

Actually the cows are kept happy... Distressed cows lowers the quality of the meat..

True story!

 

[wingman]

Actually the cows are kept happy... Distressed cows lowers the quality of the meat..

True story!

Brown cows put out choc milk, white cows put out normal milk

 

[Bazza20]

Actually Bazza, YOU are WRONG. Most commercial meat in Australia (and the rest of the western world) is not 100% grass fed. Most cows are grass fed for the majority of their life and then switch to grain feeding for the last 60-90 days before slaughter - that is not true grass fed. In fact I can find only two grass fed suppliers in all of Victoria (and they are both biodynamic farmers).

You are also dead wrong about it not being clear that grass is healthier for ruminant animals than grain. You clearly have not read any of the clinical studies on the subject. First of all, its just plain common sense, ruminant animals eat grass in the wild - not grain. Secondly, clinical investigation has proven that grass fed beef have a healthier fatty acid composition, such as -
-Omega 3s in beef that feed on grass is 7% of the total fat content, compared to 1% in grain-only fed beef.
- if the ratio of omega 6 fats to omega 3 fats exceeds 4:1, people have more health problems. This is especially meaningful since grain-fed beef can have ratios that exceed 20:1 whereby grass-fed beef is down around 3:1.
-Grass-fed beef is loaded with other natural minerals and vitamins, plus it's a great source of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) a fat that reduces the risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders. In fact, grass fed meat can have 3 to 5 times as much CLA as grain fed meat.
Clinical studies reflect these facts, for example -

-North Dakota State University conducted a study on the nutritional differences between grass-fed and grain-fed bison. The results of that study closely followed that of the egg studies. The grass-fed bison had omega 6 to omega 3 ratios of 4.0 to one, and the grain-fed bison had ratios of 21 to one.


-One study, published in J Anim Sci 2000 Nov;78(11):2849-55 came to this conclusion -
"The concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in fat was higher (P < .05) for steers offered ration 5 than for those given any other ration. Decreasing the proportion of concentrate in the diet, which effectively increased grass intake, caused a linear decrease in the concentration of saturated fatty acids (SFA) (P < .01) and in the n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio (P < .001) and a linear increase in the PUFA:SFA ratio (P < .01) and the conjugated linoleic acid concentration (P < .001). The data indicate that i.m. fatty acid composition of beef can be improved from a human health perspective by inclusion of grass in the diet.

-another study published in J Anim Sci 1996 Mar;74(3):625-38 had this to say -
" Final BW and carcass characteristics in all cattle were improved by full season grazing followed by feeding corn silage, compared with cattle finished with grain on pasture"

-

Well done on google there. Now fuck off and see what actually happens on a farm.

 

[nazzysmith]

Brown cows put out choc milk, white cows put out normal milk

How does a brown cow have white milk when its always eating green grass?


Regarding distressed cows... It's very true and relates to meat quality...

One of the tests used to determine meat grade is a PH test... And it can show up here.... Resulting in the meat quality being downgraded...