From: Dave Sill (dsill@highland.net)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 21:02:38 MST
Michael S Lorrey <retroman@turbont.net> wrote:
>
> Any cornfed domestic animal will have much higher fat and cholesterol levels
> than ones fed on the range. Of course, fatty foods taste better to many people,
> and its easier to bulk your animals up on corn than grass, so its more
> profitable for the farmer to operate on a corn diet of various degrees.
Grain finished beef tastes better and is more tender, regardless of the
species of grain used.
> I don't
> know the biochemical differences between corn and other grains like wheat or
> rice, but it is the newest major domesticated grain, and thus the least likely
> for humans or their domesticated animals to be adapted to digesting efficiently
> or healthfully.
Corn is at least 7000 years old versus wheat/barley ~10000. I don't think
that's a big difference. And, of course, humans and animals ate the wild
varieties long before they were domesticated.
American farmers use corn to finish cattle for one reason: cost.
> I can understand the draw, as I appreciate the taste of a couple
> ears of ripe Butter and Sugar corn in a nice fall barbecue, but I'm sure if
> given the chance I'd develop a taste for crack if I could legally buy a dozen
> hits for a dollar. Thats essentially what corn is: its the crack cocaine of
> domesticated grains, and nearly as bad for you as cane sugar.
Why do you say that? As far as I can tell, corn, barley, and rice are
strikingly similar, nutrionally. For example, see:
http://waltonfeed.com/self/ntr3.html
> > Just out of curiosity--I don't doubt your word--but what measurable benefit
> > can you attribute to cutting out 5-10% beef? And what is the basis of that
> > percentage: calories of total diet, protein by weight, or what?
>
> I can't tell you any specifics. I cut it out, and I'm now much better for it. I
> don't count calories or weigh myself, as I don't want to develop any obsessive
> behaviors in my diet... It is, though, difficult to not notice a difference in
> waist size of four inches.
OK, that's great, but you haven't identified the basis of the 5-10% number.
5-10% of *what* by *what* was beef?
-Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:47 MST