The Dilemma Surrounding Corn-Fed vs. Grass-Fed Beef

991 Words4 Pages
The Dilemma Surrounding Corn-Fed Vs. Grass-Fed Beef Anonymous DeVry University The Dilemma Surrounding Corn-Fed Vs. Grass-Fed Beef There are many positive and negative opinions surrounding beef that range from the process of raising cattle to the final stage of consumption. An area of controversy revolves around the pros and cons of corn-fed verses grass-fed cattle. It appears grain-based (corn or soy) diets cause numerous health problems for cattle, creating unhealthy cattle and unhealthy meat. Two areas of concern are the nutrition and health aspects of grain-fed beef and the risk of E. coli. It is believed by many that pasture-based cattle contribute to healthy eating. Using our grasslands, which is a natural process, creates a foundation for raising grass-fed cattle (Clancy & Pollan, 2006). An animal’s diet can profoundly influence the nutrient content of its products. In a comparison, beef from grain-fed cattle only contain 15 to 50 percent as much omega-3s and are higher in calories and fat content, specifically saturated fat. As herbivores, cows are intended to graze. Omega-3s are produced from eating grass or leaves of plants which contain 20 times more vitamin E than corn or soy (Pollan, 2006 and Robinson, n.d., Eatwild). Cattle that are fed grain and confined to feedlots are prone to disease. They develop bloat, diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease, and weakened immune systems. According to a study (Greener Pastures: How Grass-fed Beef and Milk Contribute to Healthy Eating, 2006), an average amount of heart-healthy EPA/DHA in a serving of grass-fed steak is about 35 mg, while steak from non-pastured cattle had only 18 mg per serving. These days it seems like everything we eat can potentially contribute to causing cancer such as certain oils. Corn and safflower oil contain high amounts of omega-6 fatty acids (cancer-promoting fats). An

More about The Dilemma Surrounding Corn-Fed vs. Grass-Fed Beef

Open Document