Dumb question

[cottonpicken]

When i buy beef in the grocery store what are the
odds the animal has been treated with growth
hormone?What about pork or chicken?

[rkaiser]

Pretty odd if it has not been cotton picker.

Organic or natually raised will always be marked.

[burnt]

A local feedlot buys Charolais heifers and virtually turns them into steers, in terms of yield and finish, via multiple implants.

If you want implanted meat, you are almost guaranteed that very thing when you buy any meat over the meat counter.

[Happytrails]

The cattle will have been implanted. The industry stand is that the meat contains very low and safe levels of hormone. I see no reason to doubt that fact.

That said I do prefer to eat my home raised beef. I'm sure the beef in stores is 99.9 % good but mine is 100%.

[rkaiser]

LMAO scientific answer Happy Trails. By the way... Who is "the industry" ?

[wd40]

Pig barns and chicken barns would would die if they were not fed antibiotics.
That''s alot worse than the small amount of hormones feed beef.

[rkaiser]

Or the small amounts of antibiotics like monensin fed to cattle to kill bacteria in highly acidic rumens.

Antibiotic means that the product tends to prevent, inhibit, or destroy life.

Is destroying life that we have had a hand in creating constructive?

This site gets better and better after a few beers to slow down the thought process.. LMAO

[Mufferaw]

Pigs typically receive antibiotics in the first stage starter 2-4kgs of feed per pig. When you consider a market pig eats 300-350kg of feed pretty small porportion. Growth hormones are non-existent in the pork industry.

[rkaiser]

Ever heard of a product called Paylean mufferall? Would you consider a beta agonist like this to be hormone related or simply a muscle enhancing chemical?
Non existent my ass.

[Mufferaw]

Paylean is used in some extent in the industry not all packers in Canada accept Paylean fed pigs. Paylean is also fed in the last 2-4 weeks of finishing. Comparing use of Paylean in the hog industry throughout Canada relative to the use of implants in the feedlot industry isn't even close.

[rkaiser]

Fair enough mufferaw; however the idea that a little wont hurt anyone is not cutting it in the informed consumers eye.

[BFW]

Hi Randy. Sounds like you are BYOB.

[rkaiser]

Good idea Jeff. When are we going to have an agriville party. We can serve up some implanted, and antibiotic laced beef and some of ours. And maybe a couple extra bottles of glyphosate for mix for the folks who keep telling us how safe it is.

[wd40]

The beef industry has wanted to take out implants for years but the conumer won't pay for the lost production.

Another solution is leave their nuts intact and see if Mufferaw would be happy to buy dark cutters.

[grassfarmer]

How fitting in a thread entitled "Dumb question" that
someone would come up with an epic statement like:

"The beef industry has wanted to take out implants
for years but the conumer won't pay for the lost
production."

Why the hell should the consumer pay for the "lost
production"? they buy their beef by the pound and
can choose to buy implanted beef or non-implanted
beef. This sense of entitlement and dumbness that
surrounds the "commodity beef" sector is what will
take beef down the road of commodity pork.

Let's not kid ourselves though ranchers using
implants on their calves do it because they want to
make more money. Feedlots use implants because
they want to use more money. Packers buy and
market beef that has been implanted because they
want to make money. What's missing here is
consideration of what the consumer wants. In
increasing numbers they don't want implanted beef.
It really doesn't matter what the "sound science" says
- in a world with plenty beef the customer is king -
always.

Implants are really rather old news though - there is a
bigger, more immediate problem just waiting to hit
the headlines and come into the beef consuming
sight.
Seeing as how links never work on this archaic site
Google "Slate why beef is becoming more like
chicken"
This article out of the US discusses Zilmax their
version of Ractopamine. Another sorry tale of how the
feedlot "has" to use this drug because it makes them
$30 a head extra and if they didn't the other feedlots
would gain the advantage. The packers "have" to use
it to make $60 a head more and they can't afford not
too or their competitors would gain an advantage.
Can't anybody see the shortsighted stupidity of this
when the product has potential to seriously damage
consumer confidence and enjoyment of the beef
product they purchase?
Dumb, dumb, dumb!!
It's good for my own beef retailing business but I
think it is suicidal for the beef sector as a whole to go
down this "race to the bottom/ lowest common
denominator for quality" road on a meat product that
is already priced high compared to its competitors.