You Are What Your Animals Eat


----------- Sponsored Links -----------
----------- Sponsored Links -----------

In my investigation into pasture-based farming, I’ve stumbled upon an alarming state of affairs: few animal scientists see any link between animal feed and human food. “Feed animals anything you want,” say the experts, “and it makes no difference to their meat, milk, or eggs.” Because of this mindset, our animals are being fed just about anything that enhances the bottom line, including chicken feathers, sawdust, chicken manure, stale pizza dough, potato chips, and candy bars.

Here’s a glaring example. A 1996 study explored the desirability of feeding stale chewing gum to cattle.(1) Amazingly, the gum was still in its aluminum foil wrappers. Wonder of wonders, the experts concluded that bubblegum diet was a net benefit—at least for the producers. I quote: “Results of both experiments suggest that [gum and packaging material] may be fed to safely replace up to 30% of corn-alfalfa hay diets for growing steers with advantages in improving dry matter intake and digestibility.” In other words, feed a steer a diet that is 30 percent bubblegum and aluminum foil wrappers, and it will be a more efficient eater. With a nod to public safety, the researchers did check to see how much aluminum was deposited in the various organs of the cattle. Not to worry. The aluminum content was “within normal expected ranges.” As always, there was no mention of the nutritional content of the resulting meat.

When I first read the bubblegum studies, I assumed that no one would actually feed bubblegum to their animals, despite the “positive outcome” of the research.. Then a professor of animal science drove me by a Beechnut gum factory in upstate New York where dairy farmers bought truckloads of bubble gum to feed to their cows.

The view from the other side of the fence is just as sobering. Most experts in human nutrition are equally blind to the feed/food connection. To them, beef is beef, eggs are eggs, and milk is milk. Thus, when the USDA says “eat less red meat,” the edict applies to all red meat, whether it’s a fatty steak from a grainfed cow, or a lean steak from a grassfed cow with its invisible bounty of omega-3s, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and CLA.

I’ve spent the past four years trying to forge the missing link between animal and human nutrition. It’s been tough going, especially when it comes to pasture-raised animals because virtually all the studies focus on feedlot animals. To fill in the gap, I’ve searched through yellowing journals published before the advent of factory farming, pieced together small studies financed by farmers, and combed through the research from Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand—parts of the world where animals are still kept home on the range.

Finding the amount of vitamin E in grassfed meat has been one of my biggest challenges. I began tthe search when I learned that grass has 20 times more vitamin E than corn or soy. Given the magnitude of this difference, I reasoned that meat from grassfed animals must have an extra helping of vitamin E.

At long last, I located one American study that broached the subject. The impetus for the study came from disgruntled Japanese buyers who complained that American beef spoiled more quickly than Australian free-range beef. Knowing that vitamin E helped prolong shelf life, the American researchers investigated the amount of vitamin E in the two types of meat. Lo and behold, they discovered that the meat from grassfed cattle had three to four times more vitamin E than feedlot beef, thanks to all that vitamin E-rich grass.

Now, what did the researchers do with this finding? True to form, they began studying how much synthetic vitamin E to add to synthetic feedlot diets. I doubt that it even occurred to them to investigate pasture-based ranching.

Why this lack of interest in the natural model? Much of our animal research is funded by commercial interests—specifically the grain, chemical, pharmaceutical, farm equipment, and meat-packing companies. Together, these vertically integrated behemoths have a multi-billion dollar stake in perpetuating factory farming. The USDA, meanwhile, aids and abets the feedlot industry by focusing virtually all of its efforts—and our tax dollars!—on tweaking the system. For example, the USDA Meat and Animal Research Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, is more willing to spend $100,000 researching how quickly feedlot manure seeps into the water table than to spend a similar amount of money investigating pasture-based ranching, the holistic model that keeps the contamination from happening in the first place.

What will it take to draw more scientific attention to pasture-based ranching? Pressure from an enlightened public. And what will it take to enlighten the public? The national media.

I have a fantasy how this might happen. First, a prominent media source such as “60 minutes” or The New York Times will decide to spotlight pasture-based farming. Building on this ground-breaking work, an award-winning TV producer will create a documentary that deepens the discussion. The program will conclude—as it must—-that raising animals on pasture is better for consumers, the animals, the environment, and small farmers. Before long, dozens of news shows, newspapers, and magazines will follow suit.

As the momentum builds, grassfarming will become the talk of the town. Serving organic meat won’t win points in Los Angeles anymore unless it’s grassfed as well. Meanwhile, Ted Turner will stop sending all of his bison to feedlots to be fattened like cattle, and by 2005, his “Turner Reserve Grassfed Bison” will be the thing to serve at celebrity gatherings. Propelled by this groundswell of interest, private and government institutions will finally devote more time, money and energy to exploring pasture-based farming.

Will grassfarming ever become the darling of the media? Only time will tell. But even if the media misses the boat, the good news about grassfarming will keep spreading on the grassroots level, one satisfied customer at a time!

Jo Robinson is the founder and director of, a science-based website that details the benefits of raising animals on pasture. She is also the author of Pasture Perfect, How You Can Benefit from Choosing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products from Grass-fed Animals.

1) Wolf, B. W., L. L. Berger, et al. (1996). “Effects of feeding a return chewing gum/packaging material mixture on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle.” J Anim Sci 74(11): 2559-65. Photo from BigStockPhoto

----------- Sponsored Links -----------
----------- Sponsored Links -----------


  1. We who feed a raw diet to our pets are completely aware that grass fed beef is far, far better for our pets and us than grain fed. It’s also lower in cholesterol. When it comes to chicken, we only buy Gerber chicken in Ohio for us and our raw fed dogs. No additives, no salt. It’s the best.

  2. I’m fortunate enough to be in a position to thankfully, whole-heartedly and totally disagree with you. Check out both the Journal of Animal Science – and the National Institutes of Health – You’ll find dozens of studies focusing on the impact of pasture based production, not only on animal health, but on human health as well.

    For example, a study published in the January 2012 JAS concludes
    “This study suggests that grazing pasture affects FA composition promoting greater vaccenic, CLA, and total PUFA n-3 FA in female and male suckling lambs, and it is mediated through the regulation of lipogenic enzyme expression.”

    Simply stated, these researchers are not satisfied with merely knowing that finishing methods affect fatty acid (FA) profiles, they’re trying to determine which genes control it.

    A November 2011 study in the JAS addressed the paradox of n-3 fatty acids, Vitamin E and shelf stability of beef – Why is grassfed beef, with it’s more favorable ratio of UNstable n-3 fatty acids, more shelf stable than grain-finished beef? It appears that the increased Vitamin E is a factor, but how?

    One large, long-term study that I’m familiar with is the “USDA-ARS Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center” This article explains it nicely –

    With all of the science substantiating the link between animal feeding programs and the nutritional property of meats, why do so few human studies take this into account? I really can’t begin to guess why, but until that point is addressed, we’ll simply keep hearing the same skim-milk and margarine dietary guidelines.

    Here’s to your health, and your humanity,

    1. You say you disagree with me, but there is nothing in your comment saying why we are NOT what our animals eat. You disagree that what our animals eat doesn’t end up in us? Not sure I follow your disagreement.

  3. I agree with the statement “You are What They Eat.” But I totally disagree with the statement

    ” few animal scientists see any link between animal feed and human food. “Feed animals anything you want,” say the experts, “and it makes no difference to their meat, milk, or eggs.””

    The works I referenced reflect the efforts of dozens of scientists who understand the link between what goes into animals, and what winds up on our dinner tables. Granted not all of them are from universities here in the states, but I’m very familiar with the USDA-ARS Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center, which is a joint effort of Clemson, Virginia Tech, U. of Georgia and West Virginia University – four land-grant colleges.

    One of the most brilliant and influential land-grant university scientists is Dr. Fred Provenza of Utah State. He’s the head of BEHAVE – Behavioral Education for Human, Animal, Vegetation, and Ecosystem Management – The BEHAVE team is working to “create awareness among a broad range of interests, including land management, wildlife management, eco-development, and even nutrition. ”

    Land-grant universities are often pointed to as “the experts” who “don’t get it.” But I have found many of them to be a fantastic resource, filled with people who are not only willing to teach, but just as willing to learn.

    By failing to recognize the work of the many animal scientists who “get it” we miss out not only on their knowledge, we miss an opportunity to promote their very valuable contributions.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *