Talk:Beef

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clevinger413.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cease fire
It seems there is a bit of a content dispute going on here, yet there is no current discussion here about it. The page is now protected form editing to give you all a chance to discuss this properly instead of just reverting one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Amino Acid Content Ratio of Beef
It would be nice if the article included a Amino Acid Content Ratio of Beef. 2602:306:C518:6C40:F04C:9D27:545:1601 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

List of recalls
Does anybody think having a list of recalls of beef products (in the US/Canada it seems) is encyclopedic? I propose deleting it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this article, maybe not in great detail, but I could see it appearing somewhere else. For example, see the many articles and lists we have over at Category:Food recalls. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it appears particularly notable as a whole. Individual recalls can become noteworthy if they were associated with unique events that establish some weight (maybe associated with BSE, market taking a big hit afterwards, etc.), but I feel like we'd be moving towards an indiscriminate list otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this list is undue here. We can spin-off a list if we want.  nafSadh did say 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015
--Jot de (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Making my first edit request, so please bear with me. Thank you.

The reference 56 for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef#Mad_cow_disease is questionable at best. The proper source for the strategy of the EU would be the website of the EU itself, namely the site for food safety where the strategy of the EU is outlined: Most importantly see TSE roadmap 2 (pdf)

See section 2.2.1 (current legislation):

"A ban on the feeding of mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM) to cattle, sheep and goats was introduced as of July 1994. In order to manage the risk of presence of prohibited material in ruminant feed through cross-contamination, this partial ban was extended to a total EU wide suspension on the use of processed animal proteins (PAP) in feed for any animals farmed for the production of food on 1 January 2001 with some exceptions like the use of fish meal for non ruminants. Any presence of prohibited constituents of animal origin in feed breaches the feed ban since the legislation does not provide for any tolerance. "

and section 2.2.3. (Possible gradual lifting of the feed ban):

" Tolerance level for PAP in feed for farmed animals In order to apply a risk-based approach in case prohibited PAP has been detected, a certain tolerance level may be established. On December 2009, the Commission asked EFSA to provide an updated quantitative risk assessment on the risk linked to small amounts of processed animal proteins in feed. The EFSA opinion is expected by the end of 2010. Based on the EFSA conclusions, an introduction of a tolerance level with regard to a very small presence of PAP in feed may be proposed without jeopardising the current eradication measures. "

The EFSA risk assessment from 2011 seems to not give any specific recommendation to actually lift the ban.

Jot de (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Inomyabcs (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kobe-niku.jp/contents/export/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_003_2011_Expanded/index.asp
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_008-2011_Release/index.asp
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/recall_039_2011_release/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114094726/http://www.wickedlocal.com:80/norwell/news/x1468791409/Hannaford-announces-ground-beef-recall to http://www.wickedlocal.com/norwell/news/x1468791409/Hannaford-announces-ground-beef-recall#axzz1ivNjoWuw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

USDA grading section is USA centric
Hi authors, the USDA grading section is great content but to delve into such depth on the Beef page is not appropriate since Beef itself is not region-specific. I have created a new page Beef carcass classification which would be an appropriate place to record multiple countries' beef grading customs. I have cut/pasted the USDA Grading section there. DouglasHeld (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402124610/https://ahd.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/apa1976.pdf to https://ahd.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/apa1976.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112101355/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergingissues/downloads/dioxins.pdf to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergingissues/downloads/dioxins.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305114818/http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/dg_sanco_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/dg_sanco_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

India exports buffalo meat not beef.
Beef is a term used for cattle/cow meat not buffalo meat. India exports buffalo meat, some IP is trying to add wrong info regarding this on the page. 112.110.112.78 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * if its a factual misinformation, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carabeef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.170.188 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What is that? It does not mean otherwise their is a difference between beef and carabeef, India exports carabeef/buff/buffalo meat, NOT beef.

Read the source you have cited, it clearly states that India exports water buffalo meat not cattle meat. 106.67.62.46 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Buffalo meat is the article for "buff" that India exports not Beef. 106.67.62.46 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
There is twitter feed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beef&diff=787098461&oldid=787091988 and lacks clarity overall, editors could you integrate and make it lean ... Meanwhile murders are happening here and there in each week from a controversial bill:http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/06/29/even-as-modi-condemns-violence-in-the-name-of-cow-protection-mu_a_23008312/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.54.57 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Beef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213184210/http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html to http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818062130/http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/en/1bbab_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/en/1bbab_en.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cow-thefts-on-the-rise-in-India-For-new-breed-of-rustlers-nothing-is-sacred/articleshow/20290663.cms
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_%26_Events/Recall_003_2011_Expanded/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_%26_Events/Recall_008-2011_Release/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_%26_Events/recall_039_2011_release/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Cow meat
Some people here seem to have an issue with the term "cow meat" in the lead. Sure, it's less commonly used than "beef," (which is why it shouldn't be the title), but it's still used. Searching for "cow meat" brings up 688,000 results on google and 3,700 results on google scholar. "Cow meat" is even a popular redirect for this article.

Also, someone said it's POV. To me, that just doesn't make sense. Is "horse meat," "dog meat," and all other "BLANK meat" articles inherently POV now? Of course not.

So, are we in agreement now? Can we stop removing it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Goggle hit counting is not an acceptable source.  Provide a source and we can discuss. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're being awfully aggressive about this. You even followed my contributions to comment here. Could you please explain yourself instead of just saying no? Why isn't google hit counting not acceptable? I've seen it used in other discussions like this. And what do you mean I haven't given a source? I already linked one in the edit comment, and that fact that "cow meat" is a popular redirect for this article is a source of itself. But since you want more: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/cow-meat-going-out-of-india-as-carabeef-police-investigation-on/articleshow/63374600.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/crime-can-stop-if-people-dont-eat-cow-meat-rss-leader/articleshow/65114646.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/no-one-can-have-the-audacity-to-export-cow-meat-from-up-yogi-adityanath/articleshow/61520444.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As you can see, aside from just being a lesser used synonym of "beef", "cow meat" is also regularly used to avoid confusion with buffalo meat, which is also called beef. Since this article is about beef from cattle, not beef from buffalo, it should be clearly defined from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Obvious bias
There is a very evident bias in the first two paragraphs of this article. Many of the things listed are misleading and without citation. 140.254.77.135 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, WP:LEADCITE needs to be read. Sources are not needed there since content needs to be sourced in the body. That said, I am finding a few places were sources need to be used with more care, but it looks more like omissions due to people being unfamiliar with farming. Still, it's best to focus on specific content and lining it up with reliable sources. KoA (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic recent edits to lead
Recent edits by Com2029 have removed long-standing material from the lead that is represented in the body with citations for material that does not follow the body and is obvious WP:OR. I have already reverted these edits three times but will state my concerns here in order to refrain from further reverts and allow others to take over and decide what should be done about these changes to the lead, which I believe are WP:UNDUE and fail WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Com2029 has failed to comply with WP:BRD as I requested with my edit summaries here and here, and instead has chosen to edit war over the issue, and erroneously labels his edits as WP:ME.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here rather than reverting again, . For what it's worth, I agree with your concerns. I'd have reverted to the previous status quo, but have instead blocked the other editor for a short while, so will wait for someone else to make that revert. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I do see some NPOV issues when I look at the highlights of the diffs. It does come across as written with an ax to grind rather than a coherent layout of the subject overall. Com2029's additions weren't really improvements though, and it's not clear where that text is coming from. Not really sure on better structure ideas for the lead at the moment though since it's tied to issues in the larger article. It will take quite a bit of work to get this article back up to par. KoA (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. If we trim some of the POV issues from the long-standing lead that started this, and also the OR added by Com2029, we get something like this (not perfect, but does address both issues for the time being):


 * "In prehistoric times, humans hunted aurochs and later domesticated them. Since then, numerous breeds of cattle have been bred specifically for the quality or quantity of their meat. Today, beef is the third most widely consumed meat in the world, after pork and poultry. As of 2018, the United States, Brazil, and China were the largest producers of beef. In the United States, beef production has come to rely heavily on factory farms."


 * "Beef can be prepared in various ways; cuts are often used for steak, which can be cooked to varying degrees of doneness, while trimmings are often ground or minced, as found in most hamburgers. Beef contains protein, iron, and vitamin B12. Along with other kinds of red meat, high consumption is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and coronary heart disease, especially when processed. Beef has a high environmental impact, being a primary driver of deforestation with the highest greenhouse gas emissions of any agricultural product."
 * Would this suffice for now?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At least as a stopgap, that does trim things up a little, so I've gone ahead and made most of those changes so you don't have to worry about 3RR.
 * The one exception is the statement about the US heavily relying on "factory farms". That's ignoring huge chunks of the lifecycle in addition to precision issues with the factory farm moniker, so that's one area I definitely see some work needing to be done to get something lead-worthy as a replacement. The line CAFOs supply 70.4% of cows in the body technically doesn't support that in the lead because most of the feeder calves or (or cull cows) going through them spend a pretty sizeable chunk of time on pasture before that. In place of that line someday though, that would be a good place to describe the overall lifecycle of beef cattle. That could include cow-calf, feedlots, etc. rather than just alluding to just the feedlot aspect. KoA (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think those concepts are mostly or completely unique to one country, and might be better discussed in a page on Beef production in the United States – they're certainly completely novel to me, and I grew up (partly) on a farm. Intensive cattle farming, on the other hand, is practiced in many countries. In much the same way, the bit on preparation seems to be largely based on the cultural viewpoint of one particular country; a butcher where I live would never dream of making mince from trimmings, for example (unless it was for dog food). I suggest that coverage in the page should be rather more pan-global where possible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd definitely go back and forth on having country specific articles. Some things are pretty similar for countries that have large grasslands, but then there are pretty distinct differences for some countries (e.g., deforestration being a more primary issue with practices in parts of Brazil, not so much in the US for primary grazing areas). Definitely a thought to keep in mind though. At least for this article, it's definitely on my to-do list to try to globalize the content better. KoA (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view Noticeboard
A discussion regarding this article has been started at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. –– FormalDude   talk   18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of including the environmental impact in the production section
shouldn't environmental impact be it's own heading. 2601:1C1:8481:AB80:D5C2:28CE:D676:1609 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary comment on nutritional value in lede
The comment on nutritional value in the intro, "beef contains protein, iron, and vitamin B12", seems unnecessary. It's already discussed in the nutritional section, and doesn't describe anything unique or important to understanding the topic. I haven't removed it, as some other entries on widely-consumed foods include similar statements in the lede, but I question the value of its inclusion. Ertal72 (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I added that when I was trying to summarise each and every section, which is what the lede is for, but since that's now been abandoned I agree it's currently a little disproportionate since it's basically as long as the section it's supposed to be summarising. Personally, I'm okay with it being taken out for now. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ertal72, if you read WP:LEAD, it is supposed to summarize the existing body of the article, so it is supposed to have redundancy. This bit doesn't really strike as anything undue since it's just briefly summarizing the nutrition and later health section in the next sentence. The nutrition section itself could maybe be expanded to then improve the lead sentence though. KoA (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)