Beef is not antibiotic laden :rolleyes: Hyperbole much?

My bad HLJ. I should have said "they do not have any ailments due to lack of nutrition".

"perferctly healthy" was a stupid choice of words and I regret it.

The word antibiotics synonymous with beef is not much of a hyperbole.

I bet it doesn't even make the top ten of hyperbole's if even it is a hyperbole at all.

When I hyperbole I'll let YOU know.

Generally speaking, the only time a person will be allergic to meat (especially two different types of meat) would be environmental, rather than simply being allergic to meat of the animal... Poorly prepared, poorly sourced, or poorly reared animals.

(There are obviously SOME exceptions... there always are.)

Whereas plant matter can simply be indigestible, to many people.

I think your statement was reasonable; I just think the lack of good operational definitions of certain words leads to conflicting interpretations.

I can see you have not even read this thread.
It is better to be thought a fool then to write down your thoughts and remove all doubt :rolleyes:

To me beef is antibiotic laden.It sits in the fatty parts of the meat like hamburger and steaks. If it makes me a fool in your eyes, to think so, I don't care. I doubt it was a very far leap for someone with your unwarranted negativity.

Be an ass some more. Have fun.

If there weren't antibiotics in the beef, then THERE WOULD BE BIOTICS IN YOUR BEEF!

Do you want BIOTICS in your beef? I DON'T THINK SO!

(as that last line becomes my tweet for the day)

I'd KILL some biotics for a filet RFN! :yum:

(A friend of mine and I laugh because of another person we know who, when we were talking about how we love a good filet [and really, is there a BAD filet?] and she was all like "yeah, fish is OK I guess." Filet-o-fish, we thought? :lol: I mean, I know there is filetted (sp?) fish just as filleted beef, but I thought most people know what you mean when you mention "a filet."

Maybe you had to be there. ;)

Oh, and WTF...romper room let out early today?

No, Ecoli is a nasty Biotic-bug.

It is a conundrum but as a consumer I can choose not eat so much meat.

http://www.circleofresponsibility.co...ntibiotics.htm

Whoa - that was a larger image than I thought - sorry.

:eek:

lol - My kids weren't afraid of much as children, but THAT!!!!!

If Bionic Cow Santa approached me, as a child, I'd kick him in the balls, and run away, screaming "STRANGER DANGER!"

Only Native American hobos. I'm the other, other white meat.

I laughed.

Then I got hungry. (I didn't realise you were a baby? Props on the typing skills, and the extensive vocabulary.)

you should see him carry on when someone takes his binky.

For those concerned with antibiotics in meat, do you use anti-bacterial soap?

I don't choose it at the store, for my home, but I'm sure I use it elsewhere.

farto

Only because they also spend their time confined in close quarters, knee-deep in their own manure, and they eat a corn-based diet, which destroys their intestines and allows opportunistic infections to flourish. I believe the stat was that when you switch a cow to a grass diet (you know, like they evolved to eat,) 80% of the bad bacteria in their gut dies off within 3 weeks, but I'd have to go back to find the reference for that.

The funny thing is that when they compared the two, the ammonia-soaked (literally) chicken meat from the stacked-cage, windowless feed lot still had approximately 10 times the bacterial culture than the open-air, free-roaming chicken meat with no antimicrobial treatments at all.

I'd be interested to know where you got that information from Clod.

Initially, an expose'-style documentary on the food processing industry called Food, Inc. I followed up on some of the references cited in the movie because Mr. Clod wasn't buying some of it, and they confirmed what was presented in the movie. It only specifically applies to factories they examined in the US, so it's possible your food safety laws are entirely different from ours.

Probably not all that much different, but I'll look into it anyway. We don't buy cage chicken meat or eggs in our house as the only way of protesting on a regular basis, but I'm surprised in particular that you've found there are no antibiotics in free range chicken. It's my understanding that they are still used even in free range, but I could be wrong.

Antibiotics specifically are prohibited in all chicken in the US (though not in beef,) but ammonia is just a general antimicrobial, not considered an antibiotic.

Here is an exerpt from the Antibiotics Policy of the Australian Chicken Meat Industry

Much the same as the US I'm guessing from discussions I've seen on here.

Now to look into the beef industry and see what they say officially.

Not to burst anyone's balloon here about "free range" or "Cage Free" chickens, but unless you have visited the farm and or personally know the chicken farmers. You might just as well be eating chickens raised in confinement.

In the US, in order to be labelled "free range" the chickens only need to have access to the outdoors. Forget all your bucolic fantasies about the outdoors on an MGM backlot "farm"

You could have a chicken house the size of an airplane hangar packed with chickens, living and dead (they die quite readily) poor ventilation, no lights, and at the far end of the 200 yard vault you have a two foot opening to a concrete slab.

That set up is common and will allow you to label your chicken "cage free" and "free range"

You cannot rely on the US government to protect your interests. Since the USDA got involved in defining terms like "Organic" the terms have become meaningless. Actually, marketing has always been based on bullshit, but now it seems stronger than ever.

Really, you cannot believe anything that is written on packaging, especially if the company doing the writing have more money than the government agencies that are allegedly regulating them.

In other words if you didn't personally see that chicken running around before you ate it then it came from a confinement operation.

When are we going to start growing our meat in vats, without brains?

As soon as we can make it not taste like despair.

The meat tree has been around since 2003, but no one seems to be making a big deal about it.

----
Tree That Give Meat Instead Of Fruit!
Friday May 16, 2003



By MICHAEL CHIRON

MANCHESTER, England -- Here's some good news that vegetarians can really sink their teeth into: Researchers have developed genetically engineered fruit trees that bear real meat!

Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But when you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.

"Our trees may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but it's really a simple, down-to-earth idea whose time has come," declares Dr. Vincent Tartley, director of agricultural bioengineering research for the UltraModAgri Group, which created the amazing trees. ...


The rest of the story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/915075/posts

Well this is interesting...

Effect of Subtherapeutic Administration of Antibiotics on the Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteria in Feedlot Cattlehttp://aem.asm.org/math/link/large/dtri.gif

So they fed a group of 300 cattle, a little bit of antibiotic for over 300 days and a third of them started pooping antibiotic resistant bugs. That's not surprising, I think the same thing is happening to kids of germaphobic mothers.

Apparently the healthiest diet of any Brit in the 20th century was during rationing. Diets were high in vegetables and grains and low in meat and fat. They were probably lower on fruit than would be considered ideal these days (I've heard first hand stories from evacuee relatives about them gorging themselves on stolen fruit until they were sick). No of course I'm not suggesting a return to rationing. But to posit that expensive (or unavailable) meat means malnutrition is way off beam.
Brits too. It's one of the few bad habits I'm not guilty of. My diet is far from healthy unless I am making a deliberate effort, but my meat consumption has always been low/ occasional. Says the woman eating Lamb Rogan Josh tonight :yum:

No, that's not what it says.

What do you think it says?

*Steers were initially fed a barley silage-based diet, followed by transition to a barley grain-based diet.

*Despite not being administered antibiotics prior to arrival at the feedlot, the prevalences of steers shedding TET- and ampicillin (AMP)-resistant E. coli were >40 and <30%, respectively.

*Irrespective of treatment, the prevalence of steers shedding TET-resistant E. coli was higher in animals fed grain-based compared to silage-based diets.

*All steers shed TET-resistant E. coli at least once during the experiment. ("All" includes control group ie. no antibiotics)

*The findings of the present study indicated that subtherapeutic administration of tetracycline in combination with sulfamethazine increased the prevalence of tetracycline- and AMP-resistant E. coli in cattle.
However, resistance to antibiotics may be related to additional environmental factors such as diet.

Okay, so keep in mind that what I am about to say is anecdotal, so if you don't like anecdotes, just ignore it.

I was raised in a beef industry family and they have been for almost 50 years. My father and by brother (now) are both heavily involved in the world of livestock nutrition and I also work in this field. I process all the orders for our company and I know what we sell to feedlots in Nebraska, Colorado and South Dakota. Not that I am the end all be all of livestock nutrition knowledge, but that is where my background lies.

When we sell antibiotic (Called Chlortetracycline) it is usually for calves and only if they are sick. It is expensive and not often fed to "fat cattle." The feedlots we sell to don't put it in the feed. It just doesn't make sense. For one thing, it is cost prohibitive. For another thing, there is something called Rumensin and other like products that are not anti-biotics, but are approved by the FDA to use as a cattle production enhancement. These work better than anti-biotics and don't get into the meat. It just don't behoove the ranchers and feedlot owners to produce "anti-biotic laden" beef. Their livelihood depends on healthy cattle.

Most feedlots that we deal with will start a calf on 90% ruffage and 10% grain. That ratio eventually becomes the opposite...10% ruffage to 90% grain. Take from that what you will. In my experience and that of my family, feedlot owners and ranchers don't want their cattle to get "torn up guts" because it costs them more to treat them than it is worth.

Oh, and the "lean" ground beef you buy in the store around here usually comes from Mexico (long and short horn cattle) and/or dairy cows. But that is a whole other topic.

I don't know much about chickens and what they get. I prefer to raise my own. :)

But chose to ignore... Like I said, they fed them low level drugs.
So what, it's the wholesale feeding of drugs that causes drug resistant bugs to develop.
That's no surprise, ever see cows eat? half of what they eat has been dropped by one or more other animals.
That's what I said.
And hell may freeze over. How the fuck can they tell, when they fed all the cattle the same diet. When they were fed the barley-grain they shed more? Well, they had been eating low level drugs for a longer time...duh.

The why did so many steer who had not been given abx show up to the feedlot already carrying abx-resistant bugs? All the steer developed them at some point after the drugs - the third you mentioned arrived with them.

How much longer?

However long they were fed with drugged barley-silage, before the drugged barley-grain.

As a side note, I am slow cooking a Beef Roast on the charcoal grill, we are at hour 3.