Elk Meat and Venison
- Thread starter kjcba8101
- Start date
Buying venison? Channel your primal instincts and harvest the meat yourself.. and butcher it in your garage, with the door open, as your neighbors walk their dogs by as you're standing with blood soaked hands and a hind quarter in your hands..
Seriously though.. Lots of public land access if you don't have access to private.
Seriously though.. Lots of public land access if you don't have access to private.
Man I'd love to. Thought about it a bit. Here's my catch-I'm not a hunter so I lack knowledge to find deer to shoot. In addition, as a father of two little girls, I'm pressed for time. I could probably do it if it were high enough on my radar, but that's what I'm trying to figure out.
You should never have to buy venison. Go to a local sporting goods/gun store and post a sign saying you would take the venison I bet you would get several calls. I give nearly all of mine away, either to the food bank or a local family in need. In fact, I would be more inclined to shoot a nice young doe if I knew I had some meat earmarked for someone.
Are you doing this for health benefits or some other reason? I would also recommend looking into bison meat.
You should give dog meat a try. They love it in some Asian countries.
In my non-medical opinion (also my doctors opinion) beef isn't good for you. That may not be popular around OK, but it seems it's true (and I'm a meat lover).
Yes sir. Any experience with bison meat? I bought some steaks once and they were good. I'd buy them again.
Bison is actually more healthy then Turkey meat. I made a switch here a while back and am subing turkey meat for ground hamburger meat. I also through in Bison but it is about 10 bucks a pound for ground bison.
That's a great idea.
I spent a few moments looking at bison other meats. It seems that it is considerably better for you. If I cut cut red meat out completely, I would. I just haven't found a good alternative quite yet.
I would like to ask why you think beef is not healthy? Not trying to troll or set you up for anything, just an honest question.
I'll just say, that I'm not a doctor (I'm an MBA) and I don't know it all. I am by most accounts, a pretty reasonable human and with the good amount of reading I've done, it seems that the evidence shows eating red meat is not a great thing for a person. Now, I sort of buy in to the idea that eating grass fed beef is much better for you, but I still haven't bought in to the idea that it might be good for you. One study I read tracked populations all over the world that seemed to have an abnormal about of people who lived past 100. None of them are much meat at all (about 6-8 oz per month). Lastly, when I asked my doctor his position on red meat, he simply replied "you'll live longer if you eat less of it". So for me it's pretty simple. I'm not trying to start a holy war with the beef producers here, but my position is pretty staunch on the subject. Having said that, I do love a good steak every now and then. Just not very often.
Your concerns are justified. And I'm not trying to start a holy war either. But blanket statements like "you'll live longer if you eat less of it" don't fly real well. Now if he said "cut back on the double quarter pound fried burgers with extra large fries" that makes more since. Or, don't get the 18 ounce rib-eye and eat the entire thing in one setting including the fat. A 4 ounce serving of lean beef provides more than 10% of 10 essential vitamins and nutrients. Zinc, iron and protein are the top 3.
I have read similar things on grass fed beef. The claim to fame is more Omega 3 fatty acids. Which it does provide, I will admit that. However, it is still so low (grass or grain fed) that they are not allowed to put the amount on any label. The amount of grass fed beef you would have to eat to get enough O3FA would make an unhealthy diet.
The one study about folks living past 100 and not eating much meat should have little to no affect unless it showed Americans who took in second hand smoke, had jobs with stress and a ton of other factors. If it was in another country it has little to do with all other environmental, social and economical factors that we deal with. I've seen people who smoke and live to 100, does that make you want to start smoking?
In the end, it is all about a balanced diet. Fruits, vegetables and meat need to all be included. You talked about the one study of eating less meat and I'm cool with that. I would like to ask if you have seen a study of eating elk or venison that shows you live longer than eating cuts of lean beef?
I have read similar things on grass fed beef. The claim to fame is more Omega 3 fatty acids. Which it does provide, I will admit that. However, it is still so low (grass or grain fed) that they are not allowed to put the amount on any label. The amount of grass fed beef you would have to eat to get enough O3FA would make an unhealthy diet.
The one study about folks living past 100 and not eating much meat should have little to no affect unless it showed Americans who took in second hand smoke, had jobs with stress and a ton of other factors. If it was in another country it has little to do with all other environmental, social and economical factors that we deal with. I've seen people who smoke and live to 100, does that make you want to start smoking?
In the end, it is all about a balanced diet. Fruits, vegetables and meat need to all be included. You talked about the one study of eating less meat and I'm cool with that. I would like to ask if you have seen a study of eating elk or venison that shows you live longer than eating cuts of lean beef?
There's a lot of variables, I'll give you that. When I strain a pan of grease after cooking some hamburger meat, knowing it's not good to put down the disposal, that makes my mind wonder a bit. It's not good for my disposal but it's OK for my body? Not quite sure about that idea. I'm not a meat hater, but I'll take the idea of meat being good for me with a grain of salt.
If you look at the macro characteristics of elk meat (fat/cholesterol) per serving, it's easy to argue that it's better for you than beef. That's about as far as I've gotten. I'm doing more research to see if it's something I'll pursue.
Let me ask you to disclose something-are you involved in the sale or profit either directly or indirectly of beef/cattle? Full disclosure-I have no financial interest either way. My interest is purely one based on the desire to eat what's healthy for me and my family.
Sounds like you better go vegan and save a lot of time and effort.
I enjoy the occasional burger too much for that.
I beleive vet raises cattle. But I do agree with him, unless you're looking at studies done on Americans or a comparative country, I don't know if I would buy into it. Your Dr said if you eat less of it you will live longer, he didn't say if you cut it out.
I would suggest looking at Paleo/Primal diets to see some of their thoughts about eating a lot of veggies and a smaller portion of meat. (some call it a semi vegetarian diet)
I would suggest looking at Paleo/Primal diets to see some of their thoughts about eating a lot of veggies and a smaller portion of meat. (some call it a semi vegetarian diet)
I can think of a lot of guys on the board I would get into a meat discussion with before I would pick tater.
True. I don't think I could cut it out completely. I enjoy it far too much. As for my question about owning cattle in this discussion-I only ask, as I think having a vested interest skews a persons vision on a matter (mine included).
As for the study, it was done on people from "blue zones" and was looking for a common denominator in the people. Eating small amounts of meat was one of them. Argue it if you will, it won't offend me.
Yes, I have skin in the cattle business. I am a production animal veterinarian that works primarily with beef cattle and dabbles in the bison side a little.
I'm also a husband to a wife who has a M.S. and PhD in Kinesiology and Exercise Science. She teaches numerous classes at SWOSU including nutrition. I am a father to 3 daughters. One of my daughters only has one functioning kidney. We monitor her diet very closely. She does eat lean beef almost nightly, lightly seasoned of course.
If you want to look up the health benefits of eating beef go to www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com Look at the nutrition page. It will show you that ALL lean beef cuts have less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol in a 3.5 ounce cooked serving. It also gives you 48% of your daily value of protein in only 8% of your daily value of calories. If gives you 36% of your Zinc (which helps maintain a healthy immune system). All in all you get more than 10% of 10 different essential nutrients in a 3 ounce serving.
Another big misunderstanding is organic/all natural/hormone free/non GMO/Gluten free. While I'm not going to cover all these in this post, I'll go over two of them and we can revisit another time. Yes, some supermarkets advertise meat as "Gluten Free". Really???? There is no gluten in meat. Just a marketing ploy. Now for the hormone free label. There are only 2 nutrients that we ingest that do not have hormones in them. Water and Salt. So let's go over some hormone levels in different foods.
These will all be the amount of Estrogen in a 3 ounce serving.
Non-implanted beef - 1.3ng
Hormone implanted beef - 1.9ng
Potatoes - 225ng
Peas - 340ng
Ice cream - 520ng
Cabbage - 2000ng
Soy milk - 11,250ng
Soybean oil - 168,000ng
FYI, a nanogram is one billionth of a gram.
So those who scream about implanted beef getting to many hormones in their daughters from implanted beef really need to do some homework (not that you were arguing that, but I just wanted to put it out there). Also, just another little fact. You would have to eat ~125,000 lbs of implanted beef to equal the same amount of estrogen in 1 birth control pill.
All in all beef is healthy for you. If you eat the right cuts and portions. An 18 ounce T-Bone or double meat burger does not fall into those categories. I would like to think when your Dr. says to eat less of it he means these items. But blanket statements do not cover all cuts of beef.
I'm also a husband to a wife who has a M.S. and PhD in Kinesiology and Exercise Science. She teaches numerous classes at SWOSU including nutrition. I am a father to 3 daughters. One of my daughters only has one functioning kidney. We monitor her diet very closely. She does eat lean beef almost nightly, lightly seasoned of course.
If you want to look up the health benefits of eating beef go to www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com Look at the nutrition page. It will show you that ALL lean beef cuts have less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol in a 3.5 ounce cooked serving. It also gives you 48% of your daily value of protein in only 8% of your daily value of calories. If gives you 36% of your Zinc (which helps maintain a healthy immune system). All in all you get more than 10% of 10 different essential nutrients in a 3 ounce serving.
Another big misunderstanding is organic/all natural/hormone free/non GMO/Gluten free. While I'm not going to cover all these in this post, I'll go over two of them and we can revisit another time. Yes, some supermarkets advertise meat as "Gluten Free". Really???? There is no gluten in meat. Just a marketing ploy. Now for the hormone free label. There are only 2 nutrients that we ingest that do not have hormones in them. Water and Salt. So let's go over some hormone levels in different foods.
These will all be the amount of Estrogen in a 3 ounce serving.
Non-implanted beef - 1.3ng
Hormone implanted beef - 1.9ng
Potatoes - 225ng
Peas - 340ng
Ice cream - 520ng
Cabbage - 2000ng
Soy milk - 11,250ng
Soybean oil - 168,000ng
FYI, a nanogram is one billionth of a gram.
So those who scream about implanted beef getting to many hormones in their daughters from implanted beef really need to do some homework (not that you were arguing that, but I just wanted to put it out there). Also, just another little fact. You would have to eat ~125,000 lbs of implanted beef to equal the same amount of estrogen in 1 birth control pill.
All in all beef is healthy for you. If you eat the right cuts and portions. An 18 ounce T-Bone or double meat burger does not fall into those categories. I would like to think when your Dr. says to eat less of it he means these items. But blanket statements do not cover all cuts of beef.
Thank you for a greatly informative post. Your level of knowledge clearly trumps mine. I don't have the time to fully research every subject the way a scientist/doctor would, so I greatly rely on those who have more knowledge on the matter.
Vetmed
Can you offer some insight in regards to grass fed beef vs normal beef? I did business with a Texas man who raised cows and other animals. He swore to me there was a huge difference and that he could tell the difference by seeing the beef in a store. I've done a bit of research on my own, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'd like to know if you think it's a marketing ploy or actual benefit
Can you offer some insight in regards to grass fed beef vs normal beef? I did business with a Texas man who raised cows and other animals. He swore to me there was a huge difference and that he could tell the difference by seeing the beef in a store. I've done a bit of research on my own, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'd like to know if you think it's a marketing ploy or actual benefit
I have noticed that grass fed steaks fat has a yellow hue to it vs a more pure white on grain fed. Grass fed will have more Omega 3 fats which are the GOOD fats you want to eat, but if what vet said is true up at the top of the thread (and I have no reason to doubt him) the O3 in grass fed isn't awhole lot. But IMO if you're doing a paleo or keto diet (I'm currently doing keto), the more O3 fats the better even if it is a little.
The following is from a UC Berkeley wellness page.
Q. Is grass fed beef a good source of omega-3 fats? How does it compare to salmon?
A: There’s no real comparison. Grass-fed beef has more of these heart-healthy fats than conventional beef, but the amount is still minimal compared to salmon or other fatty fish.
Grass-fed cattle are raised exclusively on grass or hay after weaning and not grain-finished in a feedlot, as are most cattle in the U.S. The beef produced is leaner than conventional beef, yet its fat tends to have a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids. In contrast, when cattle are fed grains at the end of their lives, their omega-3 stores rapidly decline.
The amount of omega-3s in beef depends on the animal’s diet and breed. A 3.5-ounce serving of grass-fed meat averages about 80 milligrams of omega-3s—twice as much as regular beef. The same size serving of salmon has 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams of omega-3s.
Moreover, the omega-3s in grass-fed beef are predominantly alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), not the types found in fish (EPA and DHA). ALA may have some health benefits of its own, and our bodies convert small amounts of it into EPA and DHA—but it can’t replace the omega-3s from fish. In any case, other foods, such as flaxseeds, walnuts, and canola oil, contain much more ALA than grass-fed beef.
Take it for what it's worth, but if you are looking at going grass fed for a healthier alternative, the difference is very minimal.
What I see this as is food shaming. Terms like grass fed, natural and organic are buzz words used in marketing/advertising to shame you into getting something that is perceived to be a far superior product.
Did your doctor ever ask how much red meat you eat or what cuts of beef? Or did he just say to cut back?
Q. Is grass fed beef a good source of omega-3 fats? How does it compare to salmon?
A: There’s no real comparison. Grass-fed beef has more of these heart-healthy fats than conventional beef, but the amount is still minimal compared to salmon or other fatty fish.
Grass-fed cattle are raised exclusively on grass or hay after weaning and not grain-finished in a feedlot, as are most cattle in the U.S. The beef produced is leaner than conventional beef, yet its fat tends to have a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids. In contrast, when cattle are fed grains at the end of their lives, their omega-3 stores rapidly decline.
The amount of omega-3s in beef depends on the animal’s diet and breed. A 3.5-ounce serving of grass-fed meat averages about 80 milligrams of omega-3s—twice as much as regular beef. The same size serving of salmon has 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams of omega-3s.
Moreover, the omega-3s in grass-fed beef are predominantly alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), not the types found in fish (EPA and DHA). ALA may have some health benefits of its own, and our bodies convert small amounts of it into EPA and DHA—but it can’t replace the omega-3s from fish. In any case, other foods, such as flaxseeds, walnuts, and canola oil, contain much more ALA than grass-fed beef.
Take it for what it's worth, but if you are looking at going grass fed for a healthier alternative, the difference is very minimal.
What I see this as is food shaming. Terms like grass fed, natural and organic are buzz words used in marketing/advertising to shame you into getting something that is perceived to be a far superior product.
Did your doctor ever ask how much red meat you eat or what cuts of beef? Or did he just say to cut back?
QUOTE="vetmedpoke, post: 947554, member: 1226"]The following is from a UC Berkeley wellness page.
Q. Is grass fed beef a good source of omega-3 fats? How does it compare to salmon?
A: There’s no real comparison. Grass-fed beef has more of these heart-healthy fats than conventional beef, but the amount is still minimal compared to salmon or other fatty fish.
Grass-fed cattle are raised exclusively on grass or hay after weaning and not grain-finished in a feedlot, as are most cattle in the U.S. The beef produced is leaner than conventional beef, yet its fat tends to have a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids. In contrast, when cattle are fed grains at the end of their lives, their omega-3 stores rapidly decline.
The amount of omega-3s in beef depends on the animal’s diet and breed. A 3.5-ounce serving of grass-fed meat averages about 80 milligrams of omega-3s—twice as much as regular beef. The same size serving of salmon has 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams of omega-3s.
Moreover, the omega-3s in grass-fed beef are predominantly alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), not the types found in fish (EPA and DHA). ALA may have some health benefits of its own, and our bodies convert small amounts of it into EPA and DHA—but it can’t replace the omega-3s from fish. In any case, other foods, such as flaxseeds, walnuts, and canola oil, contain much more ALA than grass-fed beef.
Take it for what it's worth, but if you are looking at going grass fed for a healthier alternative, the difference is very minimal.
What I see this as is food shaming. Terms like grass fed, natural and organic are buzz words used in marketing/advertising to shame you into getting something that is perceived to be a far superior product.
Did your doctor ever ask how much red meat you eat or what cuts of beef? Or did he just say to cut back?[/QUOTE]
He didn't mention specifics. I asked what his opinion was on the topic of beef and human health. His response was that if you eat less of it, you will live longer. Vetmed-I'm glad you posted that article. I was thinking of this thread this week as I was reading this article (again) on people from blue zones around the world. What's shocking to me is how little meat these people eat (not counting fish)
Q. Is grass fed beef a good source of omega-3 fats? How does it compare to salmon?
A: There’s no real comparison. Grass-fed beef has more of these heart-healthy fats than conventional beef, but the amount is still minimal compared to salmon or other fatty fish.
Grass-fed cattle are raised exclusively on grass or hay after weaning and not grain-finished in a feedlot, as are most cattle in the U.S. The beef produced is leaner than conventional beef, yet its fat tends to have a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids. In contrast, when cattle are fed grains at the end of their lives, their omega-3 stores rapidly decline.
The amount of omega-3s in beef depends on the animal’s diet and breed. A 3.5-ounce serving of grass-fed meat averages about 80 milligrams of omega-3s—twice as much as regular beef. The same size serving of salmon has 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams of omega-3s.
Moreover, the omega-3s in grass-fed beef are predominantly alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), not the types found in fish (EPA and DHA). ALA may have some health benefits of its own, and our bodies convert small amounts of it into EPA and DHA—but it can’t replace the omega-3s from fish. In any case, other foods, such as flaxseeds, walnuts, and canola oil, contain much more ALA than grass-fed beef.
Take it for what it's worth, but if you are looking at going grass fed for a healthier alternative, the difference is very minimal.
What I see this as is food shaming. Terms like grass fed, natural and organic are buzz words used in marketing/advertising to shame you into getting something that is perceived to be a far superior product.
Did your doctor ever ask how much red meat you eat or what cuts of beef? Or did he just say to cut back?[/QUOTE]
He didn't mention specifics. I asked what his opinion was on the topic of beef and human health. His response was that if you eat less of it, you will live longer. Vetmed-I'm glad you posted that article. I was thinking of this thread this week as I was reading this article (again) on people from blue zones around the world. What's shocking to me is how little meat these people eat (not counting fish)
