Talk:Cattle feeding

message: A food safety expert commented on NPR that there is a common misconception that E. coli are not present in grass-fed cattle, and thus do not present a health risk.  He said that the bacteria are present in approximately 10% of cattle, regardless of food type.  This article cites a report from 2000 that allegedly confirms this, but it is possible that the state of scientific consensus has changed in the intervening years, or that the claim the article is making is not justified by the reference.  Can someone who has access to the reference post a quote to verify?  Someone will also need to check the state of scientific consensus, and make sure Wikipedia is getting the details right. (We could also contact this person directly and ask for supporting details and references.) -- Beland (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just noting here that the previous user's statement is more than likely anecdotal and references a movie that has few sources cited in it - not that the movie is wrong (or the user, for that matter), but it's just not how you go about producing an argument on Wikipedia. Rickr85 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass feeding and E. coli 

message: In environmental discussions grain fed cattle and soy fed cattle are often cited as examples for inefficient use of resources.  Numbers given are all over the place.  It is likely that people will come to this page in search of information.  We should put something here.  Grain-fed cattle doesn't direct here from search, but the link at the bottom of this page is cyclical without clear identification of the relevant text.  Needs some work. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative food values 

message: The Intro was getting far too long and often vandalized - usually with respect to one facet of the page - i.e. USA cattle.
Thus I have gone back to a useful, earlier and succinct version of the introduction, and then grouped up the sections in different headings - trying to separate out the country specific areas, and making areas that need updating (more data from Europe, Austriala , etc. - hopefully someone will be able to improve that section  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Sub Headings 

message: User:Cattlefortune has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats and general disruption. You may now resume regular editing. Chillum 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case I've reverted it back to the one I re-jigged earlier (with the short introduction).  There may still be elements that need removal and/or rewording.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you've changed to reads like a Wikipedia article in terms of intro style. The version you changed from did not. On the surface, that looks like a good change. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editor blocked 

message: This edit was reverted.  I don't see how this falls until the category of synthesis.  I was making the sentence more logical by including that fact that reduced linoleic acid and increased omega-3 consumption is healthy.  Otherwise, when the reader sees that grass-fed beef has those properties, they do not understand why that is relevant.  By adding another clause in the sentence to explain, the reader is not lost.  There is a difference between constructing a logical sentence, and synthesis.  To adamantly pursue the strict abolition of synthesis at the cost of logical and clarity in all situation is detrimental to the quality of the article.  A proper balance must be achieved, and each situation must be evaluated on its individual costs and benefits.  In this case, I believe the addition of another clause in the sentence to explain why decreased linoleic acid and increased omega-3 fatty acids is relevant. Mac520 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of omega 3 

message: I can confirm that grass fed cattle is aged before consumption by farmers in New Zealand.  We do the same with sheep or any meat and is standard practice.  Is this not done with corn fed meat also? 60.234.198.171 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry aging of the meat of grass fed cattle. 

message: Grass fed is great as long as it is certified organic. But the problem as I see it is no one is talking about the use of Human Sewage Sludge on pasture areas where the cattle feed.  In my region it is very common for beef producers to claim "grass fed" and graize the cattle on toxic sewage sludge, many times putting cattle back on the same pature that was sludged.  EPA Title 40 Section 503 Land application of sewage sludge is the federal regulation that allows this practice . Humans excrete Ecoli in their feces . Sewage sludge  contains not only human waste but medical, industral and new modern materials such as nano-particles   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.93.137 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, but are you saying this needs to go in the article? Please know that Wikipedia is not a forum to post your opinions or ideas. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Not only is this not relevant to this article, it's factually dubious. Food chain crops fertilized with Biosolids are required to be permitted thru the EPA, and that requires the farmer to demonstrate that there is no substantial risk to human health from those crops. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/503pe_index.cfm Caisson 06 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Issues? 

message: From the intro: Cattle raised on a primarily forage diet are termed grass-fed or pasture-raised; for example meat or milk may be called grass-fed beef or pasture-raised dairy.
USDA requires that cows termed "pastured raised" only be fed 30% forage during the growing season, which is defined as 120 days of the year. So a cow can be fed only 10% forage for the year and be termed "pasture fed" and "pasture raised." 
I don't think 10% can be considered "primarily" by any stretch 
See:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateU&navID=&page=Newsroom&resultType=Details&dDocName=STELPRDC5082658&dID=126904&wf=false&description=USDA+Issues+Final+Rule+on+Organic+Access+to+Pasture+&topNav=Newsroom&leftNav=
The United States section mentions the standard for grass-fed, but not pasture raised, which is then mixed up together in the "world" section, which I haven't researched what other countries do  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtJonson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words? or factually incorrect statements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cattle feeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719175735/http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm to http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914084119/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/greener-pastures.pdf to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/greener-pastures.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Cattle feeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929010538/http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_2_06_grassfed_standard/explanation to http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_2_06_grassfed_standard/explanation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222121813/http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/178-07.htm to http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/178-07.htm
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160517162213/http://ordercentre.beefinfo.org/ca/en/consumer/Download.aspx?FileName=150147-EN.PDF&masterNo=150147&itemType=PDF&itemUnits=EACH&catalogCode=RES_HEALTHPROFESSIONAL&subCatalogCode=RES_HEALTH_FORTHEHEALTHPRO&Language=LAN_ENGLISH&ProfileNo=462375 to http://ordercentre.beefinfo.org/ca/en/consumer/Download.aspx?FileName=150147-EN.PDF&masterNo=150147&itemType=PDF&itemUnits=EACH&catalogCode=RES_HEALTHPROFESSIONAL&subCatalogCode=RES_HEALTH_FORTHEHEALTHPRO&Language=LAN_ENGLISH&ProfileNo=462375
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927232709/http://www.ava.com.au/avj/0308/03080480.pdf to http://www.ava.com.au/avj/0308/03080480.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110328001442/http://slowfoodaustralia.com.au/2010/03/agriculture-minister-overturns-beef-import-decision/ to http://slowfoodaustralia.com.au/2010/03/agriculture-minister-overturns-beef-import-decision/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617072453/http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would like to clean up this section a bit (current state). I specifically just checked citation 39 supporting the statement  and I can't find it anywhere in Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition. Can anyone point out what I may have missed here? It seems to be WP:OR. - Scarpy (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of feed on product