Talk:Cattle feeding

Grass feeding and E. coli
A food safety expert commented on NPR that there is a common misconception that E. coli are not present in grass-fed cattle, and thus do not present a health risk. He said that the bacteria are present in approximately 10% of cattle, regardless of food type. This article cites a report from 2000 that allegedly confirms this, but it is possible that the state of scientific consensus has changed in the intervening years, or that the claim the article is making is not justified by the reference. Can someone who has access to the reference post a quote to verify? Someone will also need to check the state of scientific consensus, and make sure Wikipedia is getting the details right. (We could also contact this person directly and ask for supporting details and references.) -- Beland (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed weasel words, did language cleanup, and added citations in this section. --Sailor Titan (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch Food Inc. movie about E. coli. I doubt that 10% of grass eating cows are infected. I drank fresh milk thousands of times right from grass eating cows - no problem, only becoming healthier. Just watch out for "experts". Chinese will soon make artificial milk and experts will explain that this is all for your own safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.1.121 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just noting here that the previous user's statement is more than likely anecdotal and references a movie that has few sources cited in it - not that the movie is wrong (or the user, for that matter), but it's just not how you go about producing an argument on Wikipedia. Rickr85 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue is very much a red herring at least with regard to human consumption of beef. E. Coli are introduced into the food chain through improper abitoir procedures where fecal matter or stomach contents are allowed to come in contact with tissues destined for market. As E. Coli exist in both corn fed and grass fed cattle, at least to some degree regardless of fodder, all cattle must be slaughtered with this in mind. As proper slaughter techniques preclude contact of said materials with the final meet product, the common assertion that grass fed beef is somehow "safer" in this regard is simply not true. Either type of animal, when improperly slaughtered, poses a threat of human food borne illness. A qualifier to this effect should be added to this section. I do not believe this is disputable or in need of reference as it is basic science. MRISOF (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And why is BLV included in this article at all?? It is an insect borne disease which has nothing to do with cattle feeding, nor the quesiton of grass fed versus corn fed beef. Unless you are raising your cattle from cradle to grave in a sealed barn, your steers are going to get mosquito bites no matter what they eat. This should really be deleted as being irrelevant. MRISOF (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute is whether or not there is presence of E. Coli in cattle. The question comes from whether or not there's more quantity of E. Coli (due to diet) and its resilience (due to antibiotic use) in feedlot, grain-fed cattle and would therefore present a greater likelihood of contamination. And I believe the issue has been resolved and proven (there is) by the Cornell and the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center studies respectively.

Relative food values
In environmental discussions grain fed cattle and soy fed cattle are often cited as examples for inefficient use of resources. Numbers given are all over the place. It is likely that people will come to this page in search of information. We should put something here. Grain-fed cattle doesn't direct here from search, but the link at the bottom of this page is cyclical without clear identification of the relevant text. Needs some work. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction and Sub Headings
The Intro was getting far too long and often vandalized - usually with respect to one facet of the page - i.e. USA cattle. Thus I have gone back to a useful, earlier and succinct version of the introduction, and then grouped up the sections in different headings - trying to separate out the country specific areas, and making areas that need updating (more data from Europe, Austriala, etc. - hopefully someone will be able to improve that section  Ron h jones  (Talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor blocked
User:Cattlefortune has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats and general disruption. You may now resume regular editing. Chillum 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case I've reverted it back to the one I re-jigged earlier (with the short introduction). There may still be elements that need removal and/or rewording.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The version you've changed to reads like a Wikipedia article in terms of intro style. The version you changed from did not. On the surface, that looks like a good change. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Concerns
I think that this section should be removed until it can be rewritten properly. As it currently stands, it is lacking citations and full of weasel words. It also provides a very incomplete picture of the environmental concerns related to cattle feeding, as it focuses only on the impact of grazing on riparian zones and ends up providing more information on riparian landscapes than on any impact of cattle grazing. In order to fully address environmental concerns, this section should also address the environmental concerns related to grain feeding, including the high energy requirements of producing grain feed as well as air and water pollution resulting from the concentration of wastes in feedlot operations. There are other environmental concerns associated with grazing as well, such as whether the grass has been treated with chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadingo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "where such zones may be the only tree-dominated ecosystems in the landscape[citation needed]"
 * Adding citation needed, in this case, is meant to disparage something which is *obvious*, when you go out of town, and look around the landscape.
 * Cottonwood, AZ and other places, the ones with any trees larger than shrubs, or spindly things like Ironwood or Palo Verde are, obviously, in places with water - or riparian areas.
 * You can say who and where, and what all you want. But next to nobody publishes what is obvious, and nobody seems to mention it where it can be cited.
 * Yes, there are issues with the focus on just riparian areas in this article. Yes, there issues to over-grazing semi-arid areas by eco-freaks.  However, when people just try and put up citation needed, in order to stifle people from giving information, well...
 * ~ender 2009-12-06 16:28:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.19.194 (talk)

The total impact of switching between one feed system to another, such as the viability of completely switching the entire industry from corn-based to grass-fed, is missing, along with any data supporting such arguments. If it is even possible that there is enough land needed to produce that amount of grass feed (which I've seen elsewhere), the discussion about what the total environmental impact of these new land uses are v. the total environmental impact of previous feed sources is completely missing. There just aren't enough data sourced in this section of the page. Also, CAFOs aren't mentioned in this section at all, which is an important distinction that the EPA uses in regulating the environmental impact of beef production facilities. Rickr85 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the focus of this section is limited, and gives a very incorrect picture. This link cites a study by Yan et al which demonstrated that grass fed cattle produce 500% more greenhouse gasses than corn fed beef, as well as using more land and water resources than corn fed beef. Also the issue of manuer is totally skewed in this section. While it is true that feed lots concentrate said wastes, these feed lots also have controls in place to manage them. In contrast, pasture raised cattle do their business out in the landscape which results in the uncontrolled release of phosphates and nitrogen into the environment, and ultimately into watersheds. This section should be modified at least to address these issues. See this white paper from a Penn State Professor and Extension Beef Specialist. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vcKmNyu8C2YJ:www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/beef/pdf/Telling%2520the%2520Grass.pdf+penn+state+comparison+of+corn+fed+beef+to+grass+fed+beef&hl=en&gl=us MRISOF (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the problem present is directly related to management style. Feedlots outproduce some management systems in terms of meat milk and fiber per acre, however, they do not outproduce all grazing systems. I had made a very small change in the wording which removes some of the ambiguity, but it was reversed. I would ask the person who did such to talk about it here. In addition, The above "500% more greenhouse gasses" is very misleading. More greenhouse gasses measured from the cow alone are increased in grassfed cattle, however each system taken as a whole including sequestration by plants and methanotrophs shows a net reduction in greenhouse gasses in grassfed and a net increase in greenhouse gasses in feedlots.Redddbaron (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Benefits of omega 3
This edit was reverted. I don't see how this falls until the category of synthesis. I was making the sentence more logical by including that fact that reduced linoleic acid and increased omega-3 consumption is healthy. Otherwise, when the reader sees that grass-fed beef has those properties, they do not understand why that is relevant. By adding another clause in the sentence to explain, the reader is not lost. There is a difference between constructing a logical sentence, and synthesis. To adamantly pursue the strict abolition of synthesis at the cost of logical and clarity in all situation is detrimental to the quality of the article. A proper balance must be achieved, and each situation must be evaluated on its individual costs and benefits. In this case, I believe the addition of another clause in the sentence to explain why decreased linoleic acid and increased omega-3 fatty acids is relevant. Mac520 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dry aging of the meat of grass fed cattle.
I can confirm that grass fed cattle is aged before consumption by farmers in New Zealand. We do the same with sheep or any meat and is standard practice. Is this not done with corn fed meat also? 60.234.198.171 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Tony Wallace

Hidden Issues?
Grass fed is great as long as it is certified organic. But the problem as I see it is no one is talking about the use of Human Sewage Sludge on pasture areas where the cattle feed. In my region it is very common for beef producers to claim "grass fed" and graize the cattle on toxic sewage sludge, many times putting cattle back on the same pature that was sludged. EPA Title 40 Section 503 Land application of sewage sludge is the federal regulation that allows this practice. Humans excrete Ecoli in their feces. Sewage sludge contains not only human waste but medical, industral and new modern materials such as nano-particles   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.93.137 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but are you saying this needs to go in the article? Please know that Wikipedia is not a forum to post your opinions or ideas. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is this not relevant to this article, it's factually dubious. Food chain crops fertilized with Biosolids are required to be permitted thru the EPA, and that requires the farmer to demonstrate that there is no substantial risk to human health from those crops. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/503pe_index.cfm Caisson 06 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words? or factually incorrect statements
From the intro: Cattle raised on a primarily forage diet are termed grass-fed or pasture-raised; for example meat or milk may be called grass-fed beef or pasture-raised dairy.

USDA requires that cows termed "pastured raised" only be fed 30% forage during the growing season, which is defined as 120 days of the year. So a cow can be fed only 10% forage for the year and be termed "pasture fed" and "pasture raised."

I don't think 10% can be considered "primarily" by any stretch

See:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateU&navID=&page=Newsroom&resultType=Details&dDocName=STELPRDC5082658&dID=126904&wf=false&description=USDA+Issues+Final+Rule+on+Organic+Access+to+Pasture+&topNav=Newsroom&leftNav=

The United States section mentions the standard for grass-fed, but not pasture raised, which is then mixed up together in the "world" section, which I haven't researched what other countries do — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtJonson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what you said is factually incorrect.Redddbaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cattle feeding. 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/20110719175735/http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm to http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914084119/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/greener-pastures.pdf to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/greener-pastures.pdf

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) 10:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cattle feeding. 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/20070929010538/http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_2_06_grassfed_standard/explanation to http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_2_06_grassfed_standard/explanation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222121813/http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/178-07.htm to http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/178-07.htm
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160517162213/http://ordercentre.beefinfo.org/ca/en/consumer/Download.aspx?FileName=150147-EN.PDF&masterNo=150147&itemType=PDF&itemUnits=EACH&catalogCode=RES_HEALTHPROFESSIONAL&subCatalogCode=RES_HEALTH_FORTHEHEALTHPRO&Language=LAN_ENGLISH&ProfileNo=462375 to http://ordercentre.beefinfo.org/ca/en/consumer/Download.aspx?FileName=150147-EN.PDF&masterNo=150147&itemType=PDF&itemUnits=EACH&catalogCode=RES_HEALTHPROFESSIONAL&subCatalogCode=RES_HEALTH_FORTHEHEALTHPRO&Language=LAN_ENGLISH&ProfileNo=462375
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927232709/http://www.ava.com.au/avj/0308/03080480.pdf to http://www.ava.com.au/avj/0308/03080480.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110328001442/http://slowfoodaustralia.com.au/2010/03/agriculture-minister-overturns-beef-import-decision/ to http://slowfoodaustralia.com.au/2010/03/agriculture-minister-overturns-beef-import-decision/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617072453/http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html

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) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Effects of feed on product
Would like to clean up this section a bit (current state). I specifically just checked citation 39 supporting the statement A study found that grass-fed animals have as much as eighty percent less E. coli in their guts than their grain-fed counterparts, though this reduction can be achieved by switching an animal to grass only a few days prior to slaughter. and I can't find it anywhere in Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition. Can anyone point out what I may have missed here? It seems to be WP:OR. - Scarpy (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)