Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets
Rob R

Hormones

alison wrote:
All lambs fattened outside, without any growth hormones, or cereal.


Alison's post has got me thinking... does anyone in this country actually believe we still use hormonal growth promoters in livestock? Given that they've been banned for twenty years now, whereas antibiotic growth promoters have only been gone 2.5 years (not that you hardly ever heard anything about those).
sean

People probably still believe it though. People believe that ox blood is still used for fining wines though it hasn't been for donkeys' years.
Rob R

Well here are a few other health benefits of buying her lambs fed only on grass: http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm
VSS

misconceptions abound unfortunately - Alison is correct in her statement that her lambs are produced with out the use of growth hormones.

the difficulty with this statement is that is sort of implies that other people's lambs are produced with the use of these growth promoters, and that is simply not true.
wellington womble

Trouble, it's the sort of thing that if everyone else is saying it, and you don't, then punters will assume you are.

I didn't know they were banned, and I take a bit of an interest. So the chances are, most of the rest of the meat buying world don't, and therefore it's valid to say they are not used.
vegplot

Are they banned from being used on animals not raised in this country but consumed here?
VSS

wellington womble wrote:


I didn't know they were banned, and I take a bit of an interest. So the chances are, most of the rest of the meat buying world don't, and therefore it's valid to say they are not used.


i agree that it is smart marketing - it suggests she is doing something different from everyone else, when in fact, she is not.

if she had just said, grass reared, no cereals, fine. Most lambs are reared in the same way, (all of ours are grass fattened without cereals) especially if you are not thinking of spring lamb.

no-one in the UK is using growth hormones - simply not legal anymore and as Rob said, hasn't been for a very long time.
Rob R

vegplot wrote:
Are they banned from being used on animals not raised in this country but consumed here?


As far as I know it is only the EU that has banned growth hormones (if someone can correct me, please do). They aren't banned in the US or in NZ, but most of NZ lamb is grass fed anyway. I guess they are not banned in South America.
vegplot

Rob R wrote:
vegplot wrote:
Are they banned from being used on animals not raised in this country but consumed here?


As far as I know it is only the EU that has banned growth hormones (if someone can correct me, please do). They aren't banned in the US or in NZ, but most of NZ lamb is grass fed anyway. I guess they are not banned in South America.


I don't know how much, if any, meat we import that has been given growth hormones but if we do then it make sense to advertise the fact. It doesn't differentiate between home producers but it does compared to imported meat (if that is the case).
Rob R

wellington womble wrote:
Trouble, it's the sort of thing that if everyone else is saying it, and you don't, then punters will assume you are.


I don't think I've ever said that mine aren't fed growth hormones. I do see a lot of people mentioning it in adverts though, so I guess there is some value in stating it. As I read it the words growth hormones stuck out to me, and the grass fed bit got slightly lost.

Maybe I should have posed this question the other way round- how many people know what the benefits of eating cereal-free/grass fed meat are?
Gervase

Hmm, maybe there's some mileage to be made by advertising that our sheep are free from green kryptonite and that we do our best to rear them in a nuclear-free environment. Oh, and the rams are reincarnated reiki masters! Wink
Rob R

Gervase wrote:
and that we do our best to rear them in a nuclear-free environment.


Have you had it tested? Wink
alison

I only write it on my advert, as I am frequently asked.

To me sheep are the most natrually kept animal, as they thrive outdoors, with not too much intervention, but "Joe Public" will read all sorts in the paper and believe it.
Jamanda

Rob R wrote:
wellington womble wrote:
Trouble, it's the sort of thing that if everyone else is saying it, and you don't, then punters will assume you are.


I don't think I've ever said that mine aren't fed growth hormones. I do see a lot of people mentioning it in adverts though, so I guess there is some value in stating it. As I read it the words growth hormones stuck out to me, and the grass fed bit got slightly lost.

Maybe I should have posed this question the other way round- how many people know what the benefits of eating cereal-free/grass fed meat are?


Erm - It tastes better? It's more sustainable - no shipping of grain etc. It doesn't require grain, which could be fed to people to be fed to animals, or that land which could produce human food to be taken up with animal fodder on top of the land the animals them selves are on. Is that right?
hamster

Grass-fed cattle produce less methane than those on a corn-based diet, don't they?
alison

Pretty much, and the meat is nicer too. Better taste and texture to cereal fed, IMHO.
Jamanda

hamster wrote:
Grass-fed cattle produce less methane than those on a corn-based diet, don't they?


I'd have thought was the other way round. It's the bacteria that digest the cellulose in the grass that produce methane. Grain is nearly all starch, so would break down very easily to simple sugars.
crofter

Jamanda wrote:


It doesn't require grain, which could be fed to people to be fed to animals,


Lions!
Jamanda

crofter wrote:
Jamanda wrote:


It doesn't require grain, which could be fed to people to be fed to animals,


Lions!


Maybe I could have used another comma in there somewhere Laughing
Rob R

Jamanda wrote:
hamster wrote:
Grass-fed cattle produce less methane than those on a corn-based diet, don't they?


I'd have thought was the other way round. It's the bacteria that digest the cellulose in the grass that produce methane. Grain is nearly all starch, so would break down very easily to simple sugars.


This graph represents the net effect (NE - final column) of intensive cereal fed with grass fed cattle, converting methane to it's CO2 equivalent- Enteric is the belched up stuff which is considerably more in grass fed, but because well managed pasture locks up so much of it, the net effect is better in grass.



Edit: they also produce 20% less methane on a rotational grazing system than on a set stocking system (ie where the cattle are allowed to continually graze an area for the full season).
Rob R

Jamanda wrote:
Rob R wrote:
Maybe I should have posed this question the other way round- how many people know what the benefits of eating cereal-free/grass fed meat are?


Erm - It tastes better? It's more sustainable - no shipping of grain etc. It doesn't require grain, which could be fed to people to be fed to animals, or that land which could produce human food to be taken up with animal fodder on top of the land the animals them selves are on. Is that right?


Yep, and also no till agriculture releases less CO2 directly from the soil as well as taking more back up in biomass than grain crops generally do. There is also reduced soil erosion, less leaching of nutrients, and build fertility, as opposed to grain which depletes it. I could go on but there really is to much to write & there are some very good books out there. The best one for general reading (ie farmers & consumers) is All Flesh is Grass by Gene Logsdon. Or information available for free on www.eatwild.com
vanessa

Re: Hormones

Rob R wrote:
alison wrote:
All lambs fattened outside, without any growth hormones, or cereal.


Alison's post has got me thinking... does anyone in this country actually believe we still use hormonal growth promoters in livestock? Given that they've been banned for twenty years now, whereas antibiotic growth promoters have only been gone 2.5 years (not that you hardly ever heard anything about those).


Doesn't mean some unethical farmers don't still try to get away with it from time to time. Mad

There was one farm-hand jailed round here a couple of years back (literally 2 or 3 years ago); he took the rap, but it was really his boss and the pharmacist who were the culprits. In their case, it was growth hormones to veal calves.
VSS

Re: Hormones

vanessa wrote:


Doesn't mean some unethical farmers don't still try to get away with it from time to time. Mad


i think that probably applies to any sort of rules and guidelines - laws too. everyone tries to get away with something from time to time - not that that makes it right of course.

donlt be hard on farmers - on the whole we are a pretty honest bunch just trying to keep our heads above water.
vanessa

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, VSS ... just that knowing "rules get broken" makes labelling something that complies with all the rules to draw attention to it isn't such a daft idea.

I know how hard farmers work - I've lived in the countryside for big chunks of my life, including now, in a very rural part of France where most farms are small and incomes are really only subsistence level.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets
Page 1 of 1
You must set the ad_network_ads_377.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).