{"id":46073,"date":"2019-07-10T09:00:05","date_gmt":"2019-07-10T14:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/?p=46073"},"modified":"2019-07-08T08:36:01","modified_gmt":"2019-07-08T13:36:01","slug":"%ef%bb%bfwhat-contains-more-estrogen-a-steak-or-a-handful-of-peanuts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/?p=46073","title":{"rendered":"\ufeffWhat contains more estrogen, a steak or a handful of peanuts?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Colton Massey<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cedar Vale senior<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Growth promoting hormones used in beef production, also known as implants, are an area of growing concern amongst consumers. Implants are small pellets placed in the ear of the animal that contain natural or synthetic estrogenic and androgenic hormones. The hormones are released slowly over the course of several months to improve feed efficiency and the rate of muscle growth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Estrogenic\nand androgenic hormones are naturally occurring in cattle and in humans.\nEstrogen is a hormone found in males and females that regulates and stimulates\nfemale characteristics, androgen is a hormone found in both male and females\nthat stimulates male characteristics. Implants influence an increase in\ncirculating somatotropin and insulin-like growth-factor 1, causing an increase\nin muscle growth. Many studies have been conducted to determine the effect\nimplants have on the hormone levels in beef, as well as compare those levels to\nother foods. Studies referenced by Dan Loy, Iowa State University, and R.L.\nPreston, Texas Tech University, have shown that 100 grams (about 4 ounces) of\npeanuts contains 20,000 nanograms of estrogen compared to 10 nanograms in 454\ngrams (16 ounces) of beef from implanted cattle. That is over 2,000 times more\nestrogen in a handful peanuts than in a 16-ounce steak. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before\nhormone products are available to cattle producers, they are approved for use\nby the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Approval is only obtained after\nnumerous studies have proven that the treated animals do not contain harmful\nlevels, and no harm is done to the animal or the environment by the product.\nTable 1 compares the estrogenic activity between beef from implanted cattle,\nbeef from non-implanted cattle, and other common foods. The numbers in the\ntable are given in nanograms of estrogen per 500 grams (1.1 pounds) of the\nfood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep in\nmind one gram contains one billion nanograms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>
\n Table 1. Estrogenic\n activity of several common foods.\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Food <\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Estrogenic Activity<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Soybean oil \n <\/td>\n 1,000,000\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Cabbage\n <\/td>\n 12,000\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Wheat germ \n <\/td>\n 2,000\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Peas \n <\/td>\n 2,000\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Eggs \n <\/td>\n 17,500\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Ice cream\n <\/td>\n 3,000\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Milk \n <\/td>\n 65\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beef from pregnant\n cow\n <\/td>\n 700\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beef from implanted\n cattle\n <\/td>\n 11\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Beef from\n nonimplanted cattle\n <\/td>\n 8\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Nanograms of estrogen\n per 500 grams of food.\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Source: Preston, R.L.\n  \n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

The next table shows how the amount of estrogen from 500 grams of\nbeef compares to what is produced in the human body on a daily basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Table 2. Estrogen\n Production in humans, and potential estrogen intake from beef from implanted\n cattle\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Item<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Estrogen amount<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Estrogen production\n in humans:\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pregnant\n woman\n <\/td>\n 90,000,000\n ng\/d\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Non-pregnant\n woman\n <\/td>\n 5,000,000\n ng\/d\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Adult\n man\n <\/td>\n 100,000\n ng\/d\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Pre-puberal\n children\n <\/td>\n 40,000\n ng\/d\n <\/td><\/tr>
\n 500 g beef from\n implanted cattle\n <\/td>\n 11\n ng\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n

Adapted\nfrom: Preston, R.L.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npotential increase in daily estrogen amounts by consuming beef taken from\nimplanted or non-implanted cattle is incredibly small. The difference between\nthem, three nanograms, is inconsequential when comparing to the levels\nnaturally in the body or in other foods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Producers\nshould consider implanting from an economic standpoint and how it could impact\ntheir bottom line. Implants are available for each stage of production \u2013\nnursing calves, stockers, and feeders \u2013 the difference being the amount and\ncombination of daily hormone absorption the animal receives from the implant.\nStudies conducted on the effectiveness of implanting have shown that implanting\na nursing calf under the weight of 400 lbs. can increase weaning weights by 15\nto 30 lbs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nstocker animals, average daily gain (ADG) realized as much as a 20-percent\nincrease when an implant was used. In feedlot animals, steers show a greater\nresponse to implants than heifers, and ADG was increased as much as 0.35 lbs.\nand 0.25 lbs. respectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before using\nimplants, a strategy should be created based upon when and how the cattle will\nbe marketed, and what type of replacement heifer program is in place. Implants\ncan increase ribeye size and overall yield, but may reduce marbling. Producers\nmaintaining ownership through feed-out and selling beef on the rail should\nestimate the monetary value of the increased weight gain and feed efficiency,\nwhile considering the possible negative affects to the marbling score caused by\nimplants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the\ncattle do not receive an implant in order to obtain a premium for no added\nhormones, the producer should consider whether the premium pays more than the\nextra weight gain would pay if the animal was implanted. A publication from the\nOklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, called \u201cImplants and Their Use in Beef\nCattle Production,\u201d says, \u201cResearch has shown heifer calves intended for use as\nbreeding animals can be implanted one time between 45 days of age and weaning\nwith no significant effect on subsequent conception rates or calving\ndifficulty. Heifers implanted immediately at birth, following weaning or\nmultiple times prior to weaning had significantly lower conception rates\ncompared to heifers receiving a single implant prior to weaning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nagriculture industry will need to continue producing more product with less resources in\norder to feed the growing population. Implants improve rate of gain and feed\nefficiency which reduces the amount of resources needed to grow a pound of\nbeef, reducing our environmental impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jude L.\nCapper, PhD., a livestock sustainability consultant, writes, \u201cThrough\nimprovements in genetics, nutrition and management between 1977 and 2007, the\nU.S. beef cattle industry increased average slaughter weight (1,338 lb in 2007\nvs. 1,032 lb in 1977) and overall growth rate (2.60 lb\/d in 2007 vs. 1.59 lb\/d\nin 1977) which resulted in the total average days from birth to slaughter being\nreduced from 609 d (1977) to 485 d (2007). In combination, these productivity\nimprovements resulted in considerable reductions in feed (19%), land (33%),\nwater (12%) and greenhouse gas emissions (16%) per lb of beef over the\nthirty-year time period.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Productivity\nenhancing technology such as implants have contributed to these reductions in\nenvironmental impact and also reduced production costs. Capper also said,\n\u201cgrowth enhancing technologies (i.e. growth hormones) reduce the environmental\nimpact of beef by 10.7%! More specifically, 4.2 metric tons of feed, 1\nacre of land, and 22,722 gallons of water per 800 pound carcass are reduced if\ngrowth enhancement technologies are used.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consumers\nhave become increasingly inquisitive about how their food is produced. This is\na great opportunity for beef producers to address the concerns of consumers and\nimprove their vital relationship. Together we can continue improving the\nefficiency and sustainability of beef production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Colton Massey, a 2015 Cedar Vale High School graduate, graduated this spring with a degree in agriculture (animal science) from Fort Hays State University. He is the son of Todd and Peggy Massey, Cedar Vale.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay on a topic in agriculture was researched and written by a student as part of a project in a senior animal science class at Fort Hays State University. The project director is Dr. Brittany Howell, associate professor of agriculture, bjhowell@fhsu.edu<\/a>, 785-628-4015.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Colton Massey Cedar Vale senior Growth promoting hormones used in beef production, also known as implants, are an area of growing concern amongst consumers.… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":46074,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3397,3398,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-area-news","category-campus-news","category-news"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tigermedianet.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Massey-Colton-040A8587.jpg?fit=750%2C1050&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=46073"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46073\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46075,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46073\/revisions\/46075"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/46074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=46073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=46073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigermedianet.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=46073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}