Humanely-raised meat is more nutritious, CIWF says

Greg Henderson, Editor, Associate Publisher, Drovers CattleNetwork  |  Updated: 07/19/2012

 Resize text        

Food from animals raised in “higher” welfare conditions provides better nutrition for humans, according to a report issued this week by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), a group that seeks to “end all cruel factory farming practices.”

The report, “Higher Welfare Animals Produce More Nutritious Foods,” analyzes data from 76 scientific studies, and concludes that “meat, dairy and eggs from higher welfare farming often contain higher levels of key nutrients and less fat than animal products from factory farm systems.” The group identifies higher welfare farming to include “organic, free-range and pasture-based systems and use of slower growing breeds.”

Specifically, Compassion in World Farming claims higher welfare animal products are lower in fat content, higher in levels of Omega-3 and higher in levels of antioxidants. CIWF concludes that “a life worth living equals food worth eating.”

“The compelling results in our report indicate that raising animals in high welfare systems can have nutritional benefits for people,” Emily Lewis-Brown, research manager at U.K.-based Compassion in World Farming, the group that produced the report, said in a press release.

Among the group’s claims:

  • Pasture raised beef has 25 to 50 percent less fat, up to 430 percent more Omega 3s, and as much as 700 percent more beta-carotene.
  • A free-range chicken may have up to 50 percent less fat than an industrially farmed one, up to 565 percent more Omega 3s, and free-range eggs have up to 100 percent more vitamin E and 280 percent more beta-carotene.
  • Free-range pork has up to 200 percent more vitamin E and up to 290 percent more Omega 3s.

CIWF says farm animals are “sentient beings with the full capacity to experience both wellbeing and suffering. In the drive for cheap animal protein, billions of animals endure the barren confinement of factory farming systems.”


Related Articles

Controversies in animal welfare

MVMA Animal Welfare Conference

'Multidisciplinary dialogue' on animal welfare

Sponsored Links

Comments (19) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Sarah    
California  |  July, 20, 2012 at 09:00 AM

I see the emotional side of this article, but where are the facts and proof of research? I read the actual article and they even state they used only 76 of the 200 studies to support their findings. The article never cites its sources. Obviously animals do feel stress and will go off feed, but this article by the CIWF is purely emotionally based.

Dwain Holmes Retired Food Safety Officer    
USA TX  |  July, 20, 2012 at 09:31 AM

I always find these agenda driven research projects to be suspect just as all of PETA and other animal rights groups info and videos are.
It is very easy to film a very humane slaughter for instance and make it look alltogather different.I know from experience as a good share of My time involved humane slaughter!
I think that the one thing the whole meat industry fails at is not getting enough videos,info,etc to combat this.We can talk all We want on sites like this which is a great site but how many of the general public sees it?

David Nash, DVM    
July, 20, 2012 at 09:02 AM

A perfect example of an agenda-driven position looking for supporting opinions - there is no inherent merit in any of the characteristics or components cited. Junk science at best.

Dwain Holmes    
USA TX  |  July, 20, 2012 at 09:22 AM

The last 10 years before I retired ,40 years total,from the beef slaughter industry I was The Food Safety Officer for a beef slaughter!A large share of My time was spent on Humane slaughter and during the course of My work I tried to keep up with studies like this!I found that the first thing to look at is who did the study and when a group like this does a study it always slants things thier way!
It is just like PETA and the rest of the animal rights groups with thier videos.Give me a hidden camera and 100 dollars and I will find a disgrunteled employee and give him the camera and 50 dollars ,go eat a big steak with the other 50 and with My instructions He will get Me anything You want.
Problem is that people not in the industry take it for gospel.
One problem with the beef industry from calf on the ground to steak dinner is they do not put out enough info showing what is being done in all these issues!
Very few instances actually happen of true inhumane handling of livestock actually happen.

chanda    
North Dakota  |  July, 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I did some quick math based on the USDA RDA guidelines and the level of w3 reported for beef and found that a person would need to consume 1.31 lbs of Pasture beef and 3.4 lbs of Conventional beef to meet the requirements. I would agree that there are differences in levels, but this is not that dramatic--eat your veggies and include some flax--you will be fine! In cases like this real numbers are not as dramatic as percentages.

Andrew    
Delaware  |  July, 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Sure, hobby farm animals probably are less fat most of the time. I often see thin, thin animals being raised in boutique farm settings, organic for example. Some of these are underconditioned bordering on inhumane treatment due to undernourishment, malnourishment, disease and parasite load, etc.

I abhor the smarmy propaganda broadcast by animal rights fanatics. Too many good honest naive people hear that nonsense and believe it because they have no practical knowledge or familiarity with livestock agriculture. The incessant smearing of successful farmers becomes tedious and unlike many other sources of obnoxious background noise it is nearly impossible to tune out. Activists know this, of course.

Anthony    
Bryan, TX  |  July, 20, 2012 at 01:39 PM

Maybe U.S. cattlemen and women who send "non-humanely" raised cattle (is there such a thing?) to market should put out reports that are based on junk science? Maybe it's time to change tactics? You may believe that sticking to your guns, not stooping to the opponents' level, is the correct approach to supplying information about food to customers. But is it really?

And is it really "stooping"? As a non-cattlerancher, a beef-chicken constumer, it seems that farmers and ranchers would be climbing the ladder to the level where animal-rights groups have been looking down at you since 2009 when Prop 2 passed in California.

I support American agriculture, and I want to present what might seem like a crazy idea so maybe some other ideas will spawn from the absurdity.

Ron Treatise    
Alabama  |  July, 20, 2012 at 02:52 PM

Sarah, if you actually read the article, you'd have seen more than 5-1/2 pages of sources cited at the end. "Purely emotionally based"? Where is your evidence? They have summed up the bulk of the science in this area, and you dismiss it because...why?
I was surprised to see such attacks in this comment section against published findings that "humane" meat is more nutritious. It would appear that those leaving comments (a) don't want to endorse more humane methods (shame on you), and (b) respond not with counter arguments, but with ad hominems and arguments that fail to rise above the favorite of many four-year-olds: “Shut up! Just shut up! That’s why!!!”.

Instead of lobbing unsupported critiques, why not provide evidence-based counter arguments? Or do you just disapprove of “humane” meat?

Robert,    
West Virginia  |  July, 20, 2012 at 08:37 PM

As a producer and direct marketer of grass fed/finished beef, I never pushed the "health benefits" of my products. My first concern was producing a high quality product at a price that was competitive with more conventional grain finished beef. But recently, due to an executive order, I have been put in a position of having to provide nutritional facts for my products, via label or pamphlet. Being of the type that wants to provide accurate info that truly represents my products, I paid for independent lab testing of my beef ($800/cut). The results were surprising and fully support the information provided in the above article. There is a major difference in nutritional quality of my grass fed vs. grain fed beef. Regardless, my first concern is taste and quality, and that is what sells my product and keeps customers coming back for more.

I don't necessarily agree with HOW this information was presented in the article, but the data is accurate from my own findings. Interestingly enough, I view every carcass that is processed and can pick mine out easily while it is hanging in the cooler. My beef has as good of fat cover as any of the grain fed beef hanging next to it, but the fat has a yellowy orange color (beta carotene) compared to the creamy white of the grain fed carcasses.

Thanks, Robert

Carolyn Smith    
Maine  |  July, 21, 2012 at 05:03 PM

Thanks Robert. Very interesting information.

Several articles appeared recently about free range eggs and better nutritional value. I raise hens. People love these eggs because of their flavor but it doesn't hurt knowing their quality extends beyond flavor!

hutch    
oh  |  July, 23, 2012 at 02:58 PM

yea it likely is leaner, and likely chews and tastes like the hoof and horn

Robert    
West Virginia  |  July, 23, 2012 at 06:33 PM

Commentary from Craig Goldwyn, former food critic for the Chicago Sun Times, on a ribeye steak I sent to him for his opinion...

"I cooked it on the Cook-Air and split it with my wife. Check out Cook-Air on this page. If you are ever doing demos, you need one of these. Cold to 600F in 5 minutes, burns only hardwood, 17 pounds, and the meat was done in less than 10 minutes (128F). Great crust, and edge to edge the same color.

Now, about the meat. It was, in a word, brilliant. A truly memorable steak. But it was surprising in that so many grass fed steaks are perhaps a bit tougher with a distinctive minerally flavor, a taste I remember from my youth before corn became the dominant feed. This was none of those things. It was the Platonic ideal of a modern steak. Soooooo beautifully beefy and best of all, balanced. None of those quirky flavors sticking out from the edges. If I did not know better I would have guessed it to be an aged USDA prime corn fed steak.

Nice work."

NOTE: qualities vary from producer to producer and by region. Grass fed/finished products are more like wine, much depends on breed, climate, and forage.

Carrie Oliver has a site called artisan beef institute where she reviews various farm's products...

http://artisanbeefinstitute.com/

Oh, and 'hutch' before you go off on the high price thing... while I might an exception my ground chuck sells for $3.75 lb... last time I was in the grocer fresh ground chuck was $3.99.

Thanks, Robert

Jerry    
July, 23, 2012 at 06:31 PM

I have a medium sized feedlot for cattle. The real falsehood of the so called science is that they don't tell you what they are feeding the fee range animals . Just because the pen is bigger doen't mean they aren't being fed grains and other livestock feed. If you want to raise the omega-3 inyour animals feed the canola meal or othe feed high in Omega-3s. Its the feed stupid!

Jerry

Robert    
West Virginia  |  July, 23, 2012 at 06:36 PM

Nothing but pasture and hay for my critters, Jerry. There you have been told what I feed. Oh, and trace mineral salt. Why pay for expensive feeds when grass and clover grows for free?

Robert    
West Virginia  |  July, 23, 2012 at 07:25 PM

After thinking about many of the comments here, I must say that it is funny that when grass fed farmers and ranchers are making disparaging comments about the commercial beef industry, everyone jump all over them and says things like "we are all beef producers, we need to support each other". But when the shoe is on the other foot the nasty derogatory comments fly. Evidently WE are not ALL farmers and ranchers trying to bust out a living in a difficult business. So be it.

Also, I find it ironic. I know I have read several Drover's articles on how calmer cattle produce better beef. Two things affect cattle personality, genetics and handling (aka humane treatment). Why is this article so much different, other than it adds that finishing on grass produces a better yet product, nutritionally? Evidently that is just too difficult to stomach for some producers and finishers.

K    
Kansas  |  July, 25, 2012 at 08:44 AM

I think something that is being overlooked in this whole conversation is the fact the similar carcass traits can be achieved in a confined feeding situation by manipulating the diet fed without sacraficing performance. For example Omega-3 levels of grain fed beef can be inhanced by adding flax products to the diet similar to or greater than in grass fed beef. However currently the market is not indicating that this is of value to the masses as the increased ration cost can only be offset by marketing to a niche market.

Cole    
Katy, TX  |  July, 27, 2012 at 04:12 PM

I have read in both Readers Digest and Family Circle magazine about organic or grass fed beef being 'better for you', I have emailed both asking their reference's. Never received a reply from either. There was a study done by one of the land grant universities, it showed the opposite!