Corn versus Barley as animal feed

brianthebard

Wanted to put this thread here as opposed to the farming section cause its about the end result. Its pretty well known at this stage that corn is fed to animals/cattle in the US on a national level, and this has serious consequences for the animals/cattle in their own life time as well as the meat they produce. afaik this is generally not the case here, feedlot style farming is not big at all, if it is even happening. Most animals/cattle are fed grass throughout their lives, and hay (or more likely silage) is used in the winters. However they are also given calf nuts which my da said are made of barley (I didn't get to check the ingredients but thats what they smell like). Are there similar problems with feeding animals/cattle barley as with corn? Is it acceptable? If they are only fed these nuts at certain stages of their life (ie cattle puberty, or when pregnant) is the potential damage lessened?

(am saying animals/cattle because there are separate arguments/feeding arrangements for say chickens and cattle, sometimes the problems caused overlap and sometimes they don't so perhaps they can be dealt with as two separate themes?)

El_Dangeroso

Although in an ideal world, all beef should be totally grass-fed to maximise the long chain Omega 3 fatty acids, this is not economically viable in modern farming. A little barley at certain stages isn't going to do that much harm IMO, but I'd be open to looking at any evidence to the contrary.

Macha

Cows and their rumens are designed to eat grass, and other herbaceous plants. Not corn and barley. I would guess that barley has the same effect on the animal as corn. But I don't know that for sure.

Feeding them solely on grass has only become economically unviable because we all expect to walk into Tesco's and buy a piece of beef for a ridiculously cheap price. So who pays the price for the cheap meat? Not the customer, definitely not Tesco. The farmer,through receiving a crap price and the cow, by being fed food that it is not designed to eat - just because its cheaper.

The real stupidity of it is, we all pay more for our food anyway through payments to farmers - paid for by taxpayers money. Why can't we just pay a decent price for it in the first place?

brianthebard

Aren't cattle in America given a lot of antibotics because of their diet is poor, or is it more a preventative measure? Irish cattle aren't like that if that's any indication of quality.

Tar.Aldarion

I think I recall something like half the antibiotics used in america are used on animals.
However they eat over 10 billion animals a year so it is not like here.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Aren't cattle in America given a lot of antibotics because of their diet is poor, or is it more a preventative measure? Irish cattle aren't like that if that's any indication of quality.

Yes their diet is poor. They are fed corn, their bodies aren't used to it, they get sick. They also live in very high density so infection spreads quickly

Cue: insane use of antibiotics

brianthebard

Yeah but that's not the case here so Irish cattle aren't suffering from eating barley nuts possibly? Although yeah the high density population doesn't help, and wouldn't be the case here so that might be the more likely reason.

brianthebard

Some links;
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/beef/eb70w.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4035/is_200606/ai_n17171853

I don't really know what to make of it, they don't seem to be looking for negative effects of barley. If barley makes up 84% or so of cattle's diet then there is no difference between that carcass and the carcass of a cow fed corn. However it doesn't break that down into nutritional content of the meat, which is what I'm wondering. Confusing.

Macha

AFAIK, Irish cattle are generally grass-fed in fields and then finished on grain (corn/barley?) in order to fatten them up before slaughter.

I'm not surprised that these studies are not looking for the negative effects. They seem to be viewing the whole thing, purely from a profit point of view. This website might have more info.. http://www.grassrootsbeef.com/

Personally, I suppose feeding them a small amount of grain near the end is not too bad but for me, the priority is that animals are allowed to be natural, follow their natural instincts and eat their natural food! If this doesn't include barley, leave it out. 84% is just way too high.

http://www.grassrootsbeef.com/articles/article3.html
There is no such thing as a free lunch. You try to cut corners by feeding cows barley, you will not get as good a product. I love the way humans are always trying to better nature - after million of years of evolution, I think we should just leave some things as they are and cows eating grass is one of them!

olaola

I'm not sure how the feed affects the cows but beef from corn fed cattle tastes like muck.

Macha

Plus you ever seen the colour of corn-fed chicken? It's yellow. Bizarre and off-putting.

brianthebard

I'm only going on our own cattle, but they really love the calf nuts (barley). I think they might be kind of sweet. I've never seen any sort of health problems, cattle don't get gas or anything that they wouldn't normally afaik. They don't require any extra antibotics either afaik, but as you said tac being in the intensive feedlot might be an even bigger reason why antibotics are so overused in the US. However I think a lot of cattle would get nuts more often than just during the end fattening period, but I don't think we are even talking 5% of their total nutrients.

Macha

Well then I don't think its a big issue really...I'm not really sure what you're asking. Are you asking if it as an effect or if the effect is the same as corn? Whatever effect it has would also depend on what % of the cow's diet it makes up. So I'd hazard a guess that around 5% is grand. (90/10 rule applies for cows as well!!)

brianthebard

Both questions really-what potential effects does feeding barley to cattle have and are they the same, better or worse than corn. I'm really only guessing but given the price of the nuts they aren't going to be fed to cattle in any sort of quantities comparable to US farming. So I guess until one of us finds proof otherwise we can eat away at the barley fed beef.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Both questions really-what potential effects does feeding barley to cattle have and are they the same, better or worse than corn. I'm really only guessing but given the price of the nuts they aren't going to be fed to cattle in any sort of quantities comparable to US farming. So I guess until one of us finds proof otherwise we can eat away at the barley fed beef.

Well...depends how much barley is being fed to the cow. Grass-fed cows are always the highest quality. Again, see this link:
http://www.grassrootsbeef.com/ If given the choice, it's a bit of a no-brainer to go for the grass-fed.

Also, I would actually go the opposite way and say that until the potential negative effects (for the cow) of barley are determined, best to stick with grass-fed.

brianthebard

But you aren't going to get pure grass fed beef at this stage unless you go organic, so its best to try and understand what you are buying.

Macha

Sure, but I'm just countering your last post which was basically throwing caution to the wind. I'm not sure about only organic beef being fully grass-fed..Organic is about a whole, complex system of farming and a farmer could feed his/her cattle on grass, without being fully organic.

brianthebard

Not to be rude, but "depends" is not a counter. Yes I know they can feed their cattle grass without being organic, they need soil association certs for a start.

Macha

Er...

But you aren't going to get pure grass fed beef at this stage unless you go organic

Yes I know they can feed their cattle grass without being organic

??

No offense taken, but not sure what you mean by the "depends" not being a counter..I iz confused..

Note:Soil Association is an organic ecolabel. It only certifies UK-based producers. Irish producers can only be certified organic by either the Organic Trust or IOFGA.

brianthebard

Eh sorry I was also confused...

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh sorry I was drunk...

Fixed that for ya

brianthebard

I'm in pain, don't be mean!!!

Supercell

I got a lovely yellow corn fed chicken in my fridge, so I'm going with corn feeding support.

Macha

A cow's digestive system is designed to eat grass, not corn. Also, chickens are meant to peck around & pick up seeds and grain. However, they are not supposed to eat a diet of almost pure corn. It's unnatural, as is the colour they turn.

Nothingcompares

sorry to butt in and in the hope of not sounding too rude I just want to ask tacconol woh she is professionally. it seems you know a lot of about this subject are you some kind of vet/agr sci/scientist ?

Macha

No. I'm studying a MSc in Sustainable Development and have a particular interest in the industrialisation of our food system.

Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination!

Nothingcompares

thanks, sorry for descending off-topic.

Macha

Not rude at all. Although I know what you mean about electronic communication - it can be taken the wrong way.

brianthebard

Supercell wrote: »

I got a lovely yellow corn fed chicken in my fridge, so I'm going with corn feeding support.

What makes you think this is a good thing though?

Supercell

brianthebard wrote: »

What makes you think this is a good thing though?

It tastes better than regular chicken.

Macha

Just so you know, taste isn't the most scientific of quality markers:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1843072.ece

Plus wtf...chickens being fed fish?? Man will never learn...

"Most chickens in Britain are fed on wheat-rich diets, supplemented with amino acids and fish meal."

brianthebard

Supercell wrote: »

It tastes better than regular chicken.

Well if by regular chicken you mean factory produced water pumped sh1t, then that wouldn't be hard.

Macha

Another point on the grain feed, brianzebard:

"We have come to think of ''cornfed'' as some kind of old-fashioned virtue; we shouldn't. Granted, a cornfed cow develops well-marbled flesh, giving it a taste and texture American consumers have learned to like. Yet this meat is demonstrably less healthy to eat, since it contains more saturated fat. A recent study in The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that the meat of grass-fed livestock not only had substantially less fat than grain-fed meat but that the type of fats found in grass-fed meat were much healthier. (Grass-fed meat has more omega 3 fatty acids and fewer omega 6, which is believed to promote heart disease; it also contains betacarotine and CLA, another ''good'' fat.) A growing body of research suggests that many of the health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with cornfed beef. In the same way ruminants have not evolved to eat grain, humans may not be well adapted to eating grain-fed animals. Yet the U.S.D.A.'s grading system continues to reward marbling -- that is, intermuscular fat -- and thus the feeding of corn to cows."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5DB153BF932A05750C0A9649C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

So bad for cow, bad for us. I would say this applied to corn and barley.