Commentary: Caribbean caper

Dan Murphy | Updated: 04/04/2014

When you hear the phrase ‘Cayman Islands hedge fund,’ what comes to mind? Billionaires, financiers and venture capitalists, right? Now you can add (alleged) ‘animal activist group.’
One of the most irritating aspects of wading through the river of rhetoric that flows like the tides form the activist community dedicated to demonizing animal agriculture is the holier-then-thou tone that permeates their messaging.
Not only is the cause of animal rights or vegan lifestyles so much more than important than other priorities — affordable food, farm-sector security, rural development, among other issues — but the goals of most groups are cloaked in a moral superiority that justifies whatever tactics these groups decide to use.
Name-calling, mud-slinging, even property destruction and vandalism — it all gets whitewashed because no matter how far extremists go beyond what’s reasonable and appropriate, it’s okay — it’s for “the cause.”
Honestly, you’d have to spend a weekend at an animal rights convention to fully appreciate the parallel universe in which most true believer/veggie activists exist. And unlike religious evangelist types, they’re not interested in converting someone who isn’t onboard with their worldview. Instead, they react with laser-like loathing and criticism. If you support animal agriculture and meat-eating, then everything about your lifestyle and your personal values is corrupt.
But let’s turn that blanket condemnation around. If activists are engaged in something untoward, does that taint the entire organizational mission?
Here’s Exhibit A, and — surprise! — it involves the Humane Society of the United States, a group of professional charlatans who continue to suck up donations from unsuspecting supporters who mistakenly believe their money is helping to support local Humane Society pet rescue operations.
Parking its funding offshore
It turns out that the holier-than-thou HSUS is right there in bed with vulture capitalists and assorted “high net worth” financiers who stash their money offshore (wink, wink) as “investment vehicles.”
According to an investigation by Washington, D.C.-based Humane Watch, HSUS’s 2012 tax return shows a total of $25.7 million in various funds in the “Central American and the Caribbean” region.
“Where exactly is this $26 million invested?” the report stated. “It turns out HSUS funneled mega-bucks to several funds located in the Cayman Islands. You know — the secretive place where secretive people stuff their secretive money. Bond villain-type stuff.”
According to HSUS’s 990-T and supplemental tax forms, the funds are invested as follows:

• $500,000 to Ascend Partners Fund I, L.P., a Cayman hedge fund
• $253,000 to BKM Holdings Ltd. (Caymans)
• $8 million to Fore Multi Strategy Offshore Fund, Ltd. (Caymans)
• $5 million to Hayman Capital Offshore Partners, L.P. (Bermuda)
• $6.7 million invested in Fir Tree International Value Fund (Caymans)

In its report, Humane Watch asked the obvious question: “Why would a U.S. charity be putting $26 million in the Caribbean?”
Allow me to answer that question. Ostensibly, HSUS is a non-profit that never tires of touting its track record in advocating for animal welfare. That’s what they say their mission is all about.
But like any other multi-million dollar organization these days, HSUS understands that parking money offshore provides valuable investment and tax benefits. Like spending the money the group raises through fund-raising on even more fund-raising, its “Caymans strategy” is justified because it’s in service to the noble cause of animal welfare.
But the bottom line for HSUS is clearly the bottom line. More money means more leverage. A bigger bank account funds high-level anti-industry campaigns. And the investment returns on a multi-million portfolio support “competitive” salaries for HSUS executives, plus extra cash to use in lobbying efforts.
Despite what their marketing materials claim, the group is not in the business of funneling cash to struggling local pet shelters and rescue operations, it’s priority is investing money in hedge funds to make as big a profit as possible.
As Humane Watch noted, “It’s hard to save animals when you’ve parked $25 million offshore.”
All those well-meaning donors who truly care about homeless and abandoned pets ought to simply write a check directly to their local shelter, rather than forking over cash to an organization that takes that donation and sticks it into an offshore bank account.
Hard to square that “strategy” with the crying need to support the local organizations doing the actual work of saving animals.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.

USDA announces $20 million feral swine control program

Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/04/2014

ShareThis Resize text

Feral swine often forage alongside livestock and eat grains, mineral blocks, and other items intended for cattle. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Veterinary Services animal health experts are concerned such close contact can result in the transmission of disease from feral swine to livestock and people. USDA APHIS photo by Justin Stevenson. Destructive, disease ridden, razorback – all words used to describe feral swine that are rapidly becoming a growing nuisance to farmers and ranchers.
“Feral swine are one of the most destructive invaders a state can have,” says Undersecretary for USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos in a USDA release. “They have expanded their range from 17 to 39 states in the last 30 years and cause damage to crops, kill young livestock, destroy property, harm natural resources, and carry diseases that threaten other animals as well as people and water supplies. It’s critical that we act now to begin appropriate management of this costly problem.”
On April 2, USDA announced a $20 million program led by the Wildlife Service of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) designed to help states control the expanding population of feral swine.
According to Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist Billy Higginbotham, feral hogs are the most prolific large mammals on earth.
“The average is between 5 and 6 pigs per litter. Sows have approximately 1.5 litters per year,” says Higginbotham. “Young females do not typically have their first litter until they are 13+ months of age, even though they can be sexually mature at 6 to 8 months of age or even earlier in some cases.”
USDA APHIS photo Tyler Campbell. Their booming population across 78 percent of the states in the country have caused approximately $1.5 billion in damages and control across the U.S. While holding fame for rooting and wallowing high-value crops and destroying natural resources, diseases that can be transferred to people, wildlife, water supplies and domestic animals, including domestic swine, are most worrisome.
“In addition to the costly damage to agricultural and natural resources, the diseases these animals carry present a real threat to our swine populations,” says Avalos. “Feral swine are able to carry and transmit up to 30 diseases and 37 different parasites to livestock, people, pets and wildlife, so surveillance and disease monitoring is another keystone to this program.”
Feral swine wallowing activities cause property damage, soil compaction and erosion. USDA APHIS photo Tyler Campbell. APHIS plans to have the program operating within the next six months, focusing on testing for feral swine diseases most concerning for U.S. pork produces including, swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, swine influenza, pseudorabies and classical swine fever.
Coordinating projects with Canada and Mexico will also take place.
“We’ve already begun this type of work through a pilot program in New Mexico,” concludes Avalos. “Through this pilot program, we have successfully removed feral swine from 5.3 million acres of land. By applying the techniques such as trap monitors and surveillance cameras we have developed through this pilot project, we aim to eliminate feral swine from two States every three to five years and stabilize feral swine damage within 10 years.”

Will Crossing Two Clones From Prime, YG1 Carcasses Produce Similar Offspring?

By Burt Rutherford, BEEF Senior Editor
BEEF Online Magazine

A 10:30 p.m. phone call from a faculty member isn’t something Dean Hawkins, head of the Division of Agriculture at West Texas A&M University (WTAMU) in Canyon, usually looks forward to.

However, this one from Ty Lawrence, head of the Beef Carcass Research Center on campus and the university’s resident “meathead,” was different. Lawrence had an idea. “I’ve said to myself many times over the years when watching a Prime, Yield Grade (YG) 1 carcass go by on the rail, ‘We should have cloned that animal instead of killing it,’ ” he says.

So, throwing caution to the wind, Lawrence proposed to Hawkins that WTAMU undertake a cloning project unlike any other ever envisioned. That is to take a Prime, YG1 steer carcass and “reverse engineer” the genetics to produce a live bull.

Hawkins’ answer was swift. “No,” he said. “Let’s clone a Prime, YG1 bull and a heifer.”

And that’s how, back in 2010, WTAMU’s groundbreaking cloning experiment got its start.

Sign up now for BEEF Daily and get all the latest hot topics straight to your inbox!

The fruits of that idea — an Angus bull named Alpha, born in July 2012, and three Angus heifers named Gamma I, Gamma II and Gamma III, born in November and December 2012 — are now ready to take part in the next phase of the research. That’s to see if a cross of two clones from Prime, YG1 carcasses will produce similar offspring when mated.

Genetic rarity

Most consider a Prime, YG1 carcass to be the pinnacle of genetic success in the beef industry. The reason Lawrence felt so disappointed when he watched one roll by on the rail is because that genetic combination is so rare. “Muscle and fat are antagonists, so a Prime, YG1 animal is an extreme rarity.” In fact, he says, it only happens 0.03% of the time.

On the other end of the scale, a Standard, or no-roll, YG5 is an extreme rarity. “Those events just don’t go together,” Lawrence says. That’s why Choice YG3 is the center point in most packer grids. It’s the most common outcome, even in a breeding program designed to emphasize carcass quality.

“Our long-term goal in the research is to see if we can move the needle in the percentage of genetically superior, Prime, YG1 carcasses that are produced in the commercial cattle system in the U.S.,” Lawrence says. “And how far can we move it? We don’t know what that answer is. But we hope to, in the next few years.”

Since the research began in 2010, Lawrence and his team have identified 30 Prime, YG1 carcasses. When they find such a carcass, the research team collects a quarter-sized muscle tissue sample. Half the sample goes to Viagen in Cedar Park, TX, to be tissue-banked. The other half goes to a commercial DNA laboratory for genetic analysis.

Based on the DNA results, many of the carcasses prove to be an accident of environment more than a result of the right combination of genetics, Hawkins says.

“Then we have cattle within that larger pool where their DNA says they aren’t completely a statistical rarity,” Lawrence says. “This animal has genetics that are high in USDA Quality Grade and growth. We take those animals where the DNA says the genetics are reasonably likely to occur again, and clone that animal” using somatic-cell nuclear transfer reproductive technology provided by Viagen.

The unique thing about the project, Hawkins says, is that Alpha the bull and the three Gamma heifers were products of the commercial cattle system. They came from commercial cowherds, were fed in commercial feedyards and received the benefit of any production technology the feedyard used.

“We didn’t know what they looked like,” Hawkins says. All they knew was they had a highly desirable, statistically rare and commercially valuable carcass in front of them.

Because the cloned heifers are too valuable to risk breeding artificially and carrying a calf, they were bred with Alpha semen, super-ovulated in February and March, and the embryos implanted in recipient cows. “We don’t know what Alpha’s birthweights would be; we don’t know all the things that matter to cow-calf guys,” Hawkins says. “So we won’t chance breeding him to the heifers.”

Depending on how many embryos they get, the researchers will have a fair number of calves that will yield data on traditional growth and production traits. Among these are birthweight, average daily gain, feed efficiency and others.

Extensive research

As more Prime, YG1 carcasses come rolling down the line in a packing plant, the research will continue.

“We skipped the Beta line initially,” Lawrence says, “and we’re in the process of cloning the Beta line now. They will be red or white, based on the DNA.”

Because the DNA test is Angus-based, the results only told them that the carcass wasn’t Angus. The researchers must wait until the calves are born to see what they have for breed makeup. “And we’re out there looking for Delta, Epsilon. It will continue.”

Hawkins and Lawrence emphasize that the research is at the very beginning stages, but the potential is exciting. “The Alpha-Gamma cross may be a complete bust. We don’t know,” Lawrence says. “But the Gamma-Epsilon cross might be a home run. So we plan to collect several steer carcasses, clone them; several heifer carcasses, clone them; and cross them in every possible way. The likelihood that one of them is a rock star is pretty high.”

Join the conversation! Follow BEEF on Facebook and Twitter.

Even though it’s still 2-3 years before the project yields the first real-world, commercially produced data, it would take up to 60 years to produce the same results without the technology. And that’s if the researchers had been able to trace back the Prime, YG1 carcasses to the cow and the bull that produced them. This way, Lawrence says, they find a good carcass and hit the reset button on those genetics.

In addition to Hawkins and Lawrence, the project involves many others, some of whom donated their time and expertise to keep costs in line. Those include WTAMU faculty David Lust and John Richeson, and Ph.D. student Kelly Jones, who husbanded the cloned calves day and night. The WTAMU faculty partnered with Gregg Veneklassen of Timber Creek Vet Clinic in Canyon, TX, and Jason Abraham, a rancher from Canadian, TX, along with embryologists Todd Stroud and John Nelson, and scientists from Viagen.

As the project continues, Hawkins says the university and its partners have a business plan in place to take the genetics to the cattle industry. According to Lawrence, they hope ultimately to create a new line of cattle, a composite of the best of the best of the best from all existing breeds and their crosses.

“The other offshoot of this is, using the same techniques, what if we were to identify cattle that came through a feedlot that for whatever reason, didn’t get bovine respiratory disease?” Hawkins says. “The genetics of the immune function is a huge unknown. So there are a lot of applications to this. We’re just using technology to make things better. That’s all it is.”

Phage 'cocktail' wipes out 99 percent of E. coli in meat, spinach

Natalie M van Hoose, Purdue Extension | Updated: 04/02/2014
Drover's Cattle Network


Treating food products with select bacteriophages - viruses that target and kill bacteria - could significantly reduce concentrations of E. coli, a Purdue University study shows.
An injection of bacteriophages - also known informally as "phages" - nearly eradicated a toxin-producing strain of E. coli in contaminated spinach and ground beef, in some cases decreasing E. coli concentrations by about 99 percent.
The study suggests that bacteriophage treatment could be an effective tool to help ensure the safety of food products, said Paul Ebner, associate professor of animal sciences.
"Phage treatment is a way of harnessing the natural antibacterial properties of phages to limit E. coli and other important foodborne pathogens," Ebner said. "Applying this kind of therapy to contaminated foods will make them safer."
While most strains of E. coli are harmless, some can cause severe and potentially fatal illnesses. The strain used in Ebner's study - E. coli O157:H7 - caused more than 63,000 illnesses, 2,100 hospitalizations and 20 deaths in the U.S. in 2011. Ingesting as few as 10 colony-forming units of E. coli O157:H7 can result in serious illness.
Most E. coli infections are caused by eating undercooked meat contaminated with the bacteria, but outbreaks associated with fresh produce such as spinach are on the rise.
Ebner and Purdue graduate students Yingying Hong and Yanying Pan infected fresh spinach leaves and ground beef with about 10 million cells of E. coli, a far greater amount than typically found in contaminated food products, Ebner said. The researchers then treated the food with a "phage cocktail," a liquid containing three kinds of phages selected for their ability to quickly and efficiently kill E. coli. Using a variety of phages also helps prevent the bacteria from developing resistance.
After 24 hours, the treatment had reduced E. coli concentrations in the spinach, stored at room temperature, by more than 99.9 percent. E. coli dropped by more than 99.8 percent and about 99.8 percent in spinach after 48 and 72 hours, respectively.
In ground beef stored at room temperature, the phages cleaned up about 99 percent of E. coli bacteria within 24 hours. The number of E. coli in refrigerated and undercooked ground beef shrunk by about 68 percent and 73 percent, respectively.
"Bacteria have viruses just like we do," Ebner said. "We're taking what already exists in nature and concentrating it to have an impact on these bacteria."
The search-and-destroy methods of phages sound like the stuff of science fiction: Spaceship-like phages dock onto the receptor sites of a host bacterium cell and deploy a syringe-like device that penetrates the cell wall. They inject their own DNA into the host cell, transforming it into a phage-making factory. The cell assembles phages until it contains so many it explodes, releasing the next generation of phages to find new hosts.
"Phages are the most abundant life forms on the planet - if you consider viruses to be alive," Ebner said. "You can eat thousands of phages just by licking your lips."
Ingesting phages does not pose a threat to human health because phages are highly host-specific, only targeting certain types of bacteria, said Ebner.
"Phage therapy is a way of using microbes beneficially, similar to using probiotics in yogurt," he said.
Interest in using phages as antibacterial treatments has increased with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The host specificity of phages can be an advantage over broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can wipe out both pathogenic and beneficial bacteria, Ebner said.
He said phage therapy is not a substitute for antibiotics, but "it can be very effective when used at specific time points and for shorter periods."

Baise: EPA's water police: Coming to your farm?

Gary H. Baise | Updated: 04/02/2014
Drovers Cattle Network

I just returned from Germany and Poland and was startled to discover the regulatory control the European Union exercises over its farmers and agriculture.
Gary H. Baise This should not be a surprise, however, when a farmer has the EU paying one-half the cost of his tractor and/or farm equipment.
In eastern Germany, we were also regaled with stories about the old communist government ordering planting on days it was raining.
Unfortunately we are headed in the same direction here.
The EPA has just released a new definition of "Waters of the United States." Critics are calling this the biggest government land grab ever. Senator David Vitter, R-La., and a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said, "The…(proposed) rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U. S. history." Senator Murkowski, R-Alaska, claimed the EPA proposal "could result in serious collateral damage to our economy." She also said, "If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state – and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and new development.
This quote may apply to most of the states of the Union, and not just Alaska. This EPA proposal, if promulgated, will give it zoning authority over land use.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, claims the new rule is giving EPA permission to regulate anything from runoff ditches to stock ponds. "This Administration has decided that Washington knows best," says Neugebauer. Another Congressman declared, "If approved, this rule would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States."
These are strong statements. I am going to examine this sweeping 370-page proposal in this and subsequent blogs. The fears expressed by Senators and Congressmen are well founded. One article has suggested that EPA's water police are coming to your farm, business and backyard.
The EPA document has nine sections dealing with the proposed definition of "Waters of the United States." In addition, the agency provides background on its scientific review which I wrote about on January 27, 2014. EPA uses another 300-page document to discuss "Connectivity." This EPA Connectivity report was issued in September, 2013 and describes how isolated bodies of water, isolated streams and isolated wetlands relate to larger bodies of water.
The language which concerns so many groups in agriculture is that EPA believes that all bodies of water are somehow physically, chemically and biologically connected to downstream Waters of the United States.
What is "Significant Nexus?"
Two words are critical to EPA's power grab over your private property if it has water on it. The terms are "Significant Nexus". EPA says there can be a significant nexus with "other waters". EPA declares that "other waters," which I will discuss in a subsequent blog, can have a relationship to each other and connections downstream which affect the chemical, physical or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters. EPA says "The existence of the connection, a nexus, does not by itself establish that it is a 'significant nexus'."
EPA claims it will review water on your property or coming from your property and undertake a case-specific analysis to determine whether the gradient of your property and its water creates a relationship that "…constitutes a significant nexus."
EPA, in a chilling statement, says "Functions of waters that might demonstrate a significant nexus includes sediment trapping, nutrient recycling, pollutant trapping and filtering, retention or attenuation of flood waters, runoff storage, export of organic matter, export of food resources, and provision of aquatic habitat. A hydrologic connection is not necessary to establish a significant nexus."
EPA, with this statement, can come after virtually any water on your property.
EPA claims it is merely clarifying the definition of Waters of the United States. As I told members of the Iowa and Missouri Farm Bureaus this past week, such an assertion is simply not believable and is nonsense.
As one article said, the EPA water police are coming to your farm, ranch or timber operation. If this rule is promulgated, it will be unclear who has more control over its farmers…the European Union or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- See more at: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/e-newsletters/drovers-daily/Baise-EPAs-water-police-Coming-to-your-farm-253604141.html?view=all#sthash.TGylD6hw.dpuf

I’m Having An Internal Conversation About Beef’s Future

Apr 1, 2014 by Wes Ishmael in BEEF Editors' Blog

 

Speculation about herd expansion seems to fit squarely into two groups currently. At least it does when I’m chatting with myself.

 

Speculation about herd expansion seems to fit squarely into two groups currently. At least it does when I’m chatting with myself.

One camp looks at the sky-high cattle prices, along with more realistic feed prices and consumer beef demand that remains strong, at least according to the statistics.

Since 2010, the annual Retail Beef Demand Index (RBDI) for all fresh beef increased, year-to-year, 1.96%, 3.57% and 1.80% (2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively). During the same timeframe, the annual RBDI for Choice beef has increased 1.26%, 1.61% and 2.59%, respectively. The quarterly RBDI for Choice was up, year-to-year, 4.35% and 3.06% in the last two quarters of 2013.

Add in global beef exports amounting to around $300/head of fed slaughter (if you count hide and offal). That’s before China even enters the mix officially. That’s before considering rampant global population growth and increased food demand. Surely, expansion can blast ahead just as long as moisture and credit allow.

Then I look at USDA’s 10-year projections released earlier this year. Those projections estimate a beef cowherd of 33.7 million head in 2013 – 4.7 million head more than we had when 2014 began, and I wonder how anyone could be that optimistic.

So, I take a seat in the other camp.

Subscribe now to Cow-Calf Weekly to get the latest industry research and information in your inbox every Friday!
Call it risk aversion or an innate and unrecognized superstition loathe to do or say anything that might jinx the current market. Or maybe it just memories about how the government rather than the markets upended everything in the early 1970s.

Prices are historically high, but gross margins remain relatively flat, while financial risk increases. The infrastructure seems to be wobbling on the cusp of enough rationalization to rip leverage from supply – not immediately, but sooner than anyone would like and most likely sooner than expected. The average age of cattle producers continues to increase. It was a whole lot easier for folks with a fulltime job elsewhere to run a few cows – because they wanted to – when cows were worth half as much as they are now. As those folks – many of them Baby Boomers – begin cashing in and cashing out, we wonder how many will or can replace them.

As for domestic consumers, per-capita beef consumption has declined about 40 lbs. over the last four decades. Beef production – beef supplies available for consumption – has remained amazingly static during that time. But, the U.S. population increased by about 45%. U.S. consumers don’t want to eat any more beef than was available to a population that was 45% smaller four decades ago.

The only thing they do want more of is ground beef. Unfortunately, the market and system revolve around production of Choice and higher USDA Quality Grades.

“Under the existing business model, the U.S. cattle industry manages all fed beef as if it were destined for the center of the plate at a white-tablecloth restaurant,” says Rabobank cattle economist Don Close. “The industry is, essentially, producing an extraordinarily high-grade product for consumers who desire to purchase a commodity. More than 60% of U.S. beef consumption is ground product. If the U.S. cattle industry continues to produce ground beef in a structure better suited to high-end cuts, the result will be continued erosion of market share.”

So, we look at the annual U.S. Baseline Briefing Book released by the Food and Agriculture Policy Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and feel lots more comfortable.

The FAPRI folks see beef cows increasing from 28.9 million head this year (Jan. 1) to 30.9 million head in 2018, and then declining to 30.1 million head by 2023.

Then we find a third camp, perhaps one not even in the middle, just another one, and we ponder more imminent reality.

“Spring has arrived according to the calendar but it isn’t obvious yet in many parts of the country,” says Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing specialist, in his March 31 weekly market comments. “Cold weather continues to delay grass green-up in many regions in a fashion that is reminiscent of last year. In some parts of the country, it is not only cold but wet. Other parts of the country are cold and dry and getting drier in some cases. Oklahoma captures this contrast well with parts of the state that have received abundant moisture recently, while persistent drought in other areas is moving into the fourth year. Warm weather will produce forage growth in wet areas, but in the dry regions the clock is ticking on spring forage prospects. Moisture is critically needed in drought regions in the next 30-60 days.”

Supposedly, El Niño is on the way.

Art Douglas, CattleFax meteorologist was predicting it in February. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center even issued an El Niño Watch March 6, saying there is a 50% chance of El Niño developing during the summer or fall. Other forecasters have joined the parade in recent weeks.

Though it would be welcome in parched areas of the country, unfortunately, it likely won’t arrive soon enough to drench the areas currently most in need of a drink.

Anybody else have these chats with themselves?

Grass-Fed Vs. Grain-Fed Ground Beef -- No Difference In Healthfulness

By Stephen B. Smith, Texas A&M University

The Internet is awash in websites that proclaim the nutritional benefits of ground beef from grass-fed cattle. However, researchers in Texas A&M University’s Department of Animal Science have published the only two research studies that actually compared the effects of ground beef from grass-fed cattle and traditional, grain-fed cattle on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type II diabetes in men. Was ground beef from grass-fed beef actually more healthful? No, the study found.
Americans consume about 40% of their total beef intake as ground beef, which is much higher in total fat than most intact cuts of beef.

Stephen Smith

In fact, ground beef is one of the most important sources of the healthful monounsaturated fatty acid – oleic acid – in the diet. Ground beef from grass-fed cattle naturally contains more omega-3 fatty acids than from grain-fed cattle (three times as much), but is higher in saturated and transfat.
At the other end of the spectrum is premium ground beef, such as from conventionally produced Certified Angus Beef or cattle with Japanese genetics (available as Wagyu or Akaushi ground beef). Ground beef from these cattle is very high in oleic acid, and also much lower in saturated and transfat, than ground beef from grass-fed cattle.
The information below is based on TAMU research that compared the fatty acid composition of ground beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle. Ground beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle that contains 10%-15% total fat (85%-90% lean) is available in retail stores, so the values listed below are for a 4-oz. ground beef patty (quarter-pound) that contains 85% lean (15% fat).

The most abundant omega-3 fatty acid in our foods is α-linolenic acid (ALA), one of the two essential fatty acids that must be obtained from the diet; tthe other is linoleic acid, which is an omega-6 fatty acid. ALA is found in flax seed and walnuts, but Americans obtain most of their ALA from canola oil.
Although the scientific studies aren’t conclusive, ALA may slow the growth rate of cancer cells and reduce risk factors for CVD. The Daily Reference Intake (DRI) of ALA is 1.1 grams (g)/day for women and 1.6g/day for men. So, a quarter-pound ground beef patty from grass-fed cattle contains 0.055 of the 1.1g ALA required by women, and 0.055 of the 1.6g ALA required by men.

Oleic acid in beef »

 

Oleic acid in beef

In other words, that ground beef patty from cattle fed native Texas pastures contains only 5% of the DRI for ALA for women, and just over 3% of the DRI for ALA for men. Yes, grass-fed ground beef contributes to the omega-3 fatty acids in our diets, but can it be considered a significant source of ALA?
For comparison, a tablespoon of canola oil (about 14g) contains 1.4g of ALA. This is more than the DRI for women and almost as much as the DRI for men.
That same tablespoon of canola oil also contains 8.4g of oleic acid, which is similar to the amount of oleic acid in olive oil. Researchers have known for decades that oleic acid has positive health benefits, such as reducing LDL-cholesterol (the bad cholesterol) and perhaps increasing HDL-cholesterol (the good cholesterol). The World Health Organization has recommended that intake of oleic acid should be 15%-30% of daily energy intake.
For women, that would be equal to 25-50g/day of oleic; whereas for men, that would be equal to 40-80g/day of oleic. TAMU research shows that men consume about 20g/day of oleic acid, and women consume about 12g/day, but this can be nearly doubled by consuming ground beef high in oleic acid, such as ground beef from grain-fed cattle or cattle with Japanese genetics.
Grass feeding definitely does not increase the amount of oleic acid in beef. The quarter-pound ground beef patty from grain-fed cattle contains over 2g more oleic acid than ground beef from grass-fed cattle. In fact, the grain-fed ground beef patty contains nearly the same amount of oleic acid as the tablespoon of canola oil. Also, ground beef from grass-fed cattle has 2g more saturated fat plus trans-fat than the patty from grain-fed cattle.

Sign up now for BEEF Daily and get all the latest hot topics straight to your inbox!

So, which is better, more omega-3 fatty acids (grass-fed) or more oleic acid with less saturated/trans-fats (grain-fed)?
TAMU studies demonstrate the effects of ground beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle. Men consumed both types of ground beef for five weeks in randomized crossover trials. In older, mildly hypercholesterolemic men, ground beef from grass-fed cattle decreased HDL-cholesterol. In men with normal cholesterol levels, only ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL-cholesterol.
Neither ground beef type increased LDL-cholesterol in men. TAMU research similarly demonstrated that consuming ground beef does not affect LDL-cholesterol in postmenopausal women.
In men, plasma insulin was decreased by ground beef from both grass-fed and grain-fed cattle, indicating that ground beef in general reduces this important risk factor for type II diabetes. Thus, neither type of ground beef had negative effects on risk factors for CVD or type II diabetes, but the ground beef from the grain-fed cattle provided more positive health benefits by increasing HDL-cholesterol.
What about the cholesterol content of ground beef? Many websites claim beef from grass-fed cattle is lower in cholesterol than beef from conventionally raised cattle. A Texas Tech University study found no difference in cholesterol in ground beef from grass-fed and grain-fed cattle if the fat content is similar.
Early TAMU research demonstrated that the cholesterol in beef and beef products is stored in both the lean and the fat within the meat. If you trim all fat from beef (including the marbling), there will be about 45 milligrams (mg) of cholesterol in a 4-oz. serving of beef. For every 1% increase in total fat content, there is a 1-mg increase in cholesterol. So, ground beef that is 95% lean (5% fat) contains about 50mg of cholesterol, and ground beef that is 85% lean (15% fat) contains 60mg of cholesterol. This is as true for beef from both grass-fed and grain-fed cattle.
At this point, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that ground beef from grass-fed cattle is a healthier alternative to ground beef from conventionally raised, grain-fed cattle.
Stephen B. Smith is a Regents Professor and Texas A&M AgriLife Research meat scientist in the Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M University.