Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but this is just not correct. Food/water borne illness is the 2nd leading cause of death globally. The majority of people know to boil milk before consumption if it is not already pasteurized. They know this because they have seen people around them affected by illness transmitted via contaminated milk unlike people in developed nations who are afforded the luxury of not being exposed to it personally, and therefore believing it to be a myth constructed by a global conspiracy. It's the age-old issue of advancement resulting in less cases of xyz, and therefore people believing the bunk that xyz are no longer problematic, but not understanding why xyz is no longer problematic.
I'm repping you, too.
If you look up pasteurization of milk, it mentions that the Egyptians were boiling milk a milennia ago. They didn't do it because there was some sort of political agenda influencing milk consumption.
Why would a human drink the milk from a cow? Why not a horse or an elephant or a tiger? It's just weird and unnecessary.
I don't understand the question. Wouldn't it be because cows are easily domesticated? Tigers and elephants, not so much.
Horses, too, yes, but they had other uses as draft animals.
But the answer to the base question is obvious. It was a FOOD SOURCE. I think this also goes to Zimbochick's post about people not understanding what it was like for our ancestors. There was no Shop-Rite open 24 hours down the street. People realized that milk and the products they learned to make from milk could provide a reliable food source when maybe the deer herds were thin or there was a famine and crops didn't grow. They could stay alive if they drank milk from the cattle.
It's like that with most food sources, isn't it? Do you think that if someone had a side of bacon stashed away in their larder they would have gone out to the garden, picked up a few snails and said, "Hey, I bet these little suckers would sure be tasty with butter and garlic on them!" Hell no. They had to be STARVING to think of eating a damn snail, no matter how much it appears on fancy French menus in this day and age.
Never gave them cow's milk of any sort. That's for baby cows.
Use almond soy and rice milk. Some times hemp.
Cows milk was really not designed for human young.
But as long as it's digestible (and sometimes it isn't) what's the problem? There are people who drink cow's milk all their lives without any adverse effects. If there weren't, the dairy industry wouldn't be what it is, and I'm not talking about the government's involvement/regulation of the industry. I'm talking about the dairy industry going way back before such regulations existed.
There were dairies and people drank cow's milk because it was a viable and easily maintainable food source in Europe and the US.
--"mainly fed corn"----------false ! --" but corn is cheap "-----false ! ( corn is at record prices )
Almost all corn produced in the US goes to feed livestock. Corn prices are rising now because of the drought conditions, but that's true of almost all crops. Cows are fed a mix of corn, corn silage (including the stalks, etc.) and grains. Added into this is a whole range of various things, including non-food products like feathers (for fiber) and waste food products like blood meal. The farms I've been on fed expired candy from the nearby plant.
Corn is used because it has a higher protein content, so you can feed less of it but get more of a protein ration compared to the same amount of other grains. In this way, it is cheaper.
As for antibiotics...the FSIS National Residue Program for Cattle tests products to determine the presence of medication residue. 90% of the violations were in dairy and veal products. How could a dairy farm stay in business if they did NOT treat for mastitis and other bacterial conditions? They'd lose their herd very quickly The other issue here is that the milk withdraw for an antibiotic can be shorter than the meat withdraw. So the farmer doesn't use the milk but the cow fails to respond to treatment quickly enough and is culled. The antibiotic then enters the meat supply. Ground beef usually comes from dairy cows, as most cows are culled by age 3. Also keep in mind that a very small amount of products are actually tested, meaning the problem is probably much larger. It's estimated that up to 35% of dairy cows will suffer from (and be treated for) mastitis. Surveys from the University of Davis show that 85% of traditional dairy farmers treated up to 25% of their cows with antibiotics within the last 60 days of the survey.
We also don't really know how long the withdraw periods should be or what the long term results of human consumption will be. But the idea that dairy farmers don't commonly treat with antibiotics is simply not correct. It is true that not every cow is treated and they don't simply add it to the feed but the cows are treated when ill, which as noted is up to 1/3 of the time. Also, the tests used on milk only detect the most common antibiotics-not the ones used off-label. The tests for those take much longer, up to a week, and the dairy industry has fought against further regulation because of it. That means cows could be treated with antibiotics that aren't even tested for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwolf fan
Dairy farmers strive to have their cows give birth on a 12 month-13 month schedule.
Since pregnancy lasts 9 months, there is a rest period built in.
I can guarantee you if cows were running wild in a ...."natural "...environment, the bull would not be all that concerned and would be mounting that cow the first time she came in heat.
Milk production peeks at about 60 days after calving. The cow will continue to be milked, however, until about 305 days. The normal weaning time for a calf (when not removed) is about 210 days. Dairy cows are bred to continue giving larger amounts of milk for longer than they would otherwise. Most dairy cows only make it through 3 lactation cycles before their production declines or they come ill and are culled. The natural lifespan of a cow is about 25 years and they can produce milk at good volume for up to 10 lactation cycles, but most cows now are culled around three for health reasons, most commonly mastitis or conditions like foot rot.
There's a reason why dairy cows and beef cows are different breeds. Dairy cows have been selectively breed for these long lactation cycles in which they produce more milk than would be needed for a calf. This is tough on the body and the immune system.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Last edited by ParallelJJCat; 07-15-2012 at 12:44 PM..
Last things first, I was referring to cows in normal good health. Interestingly, when women have mastitis, they are told to continue breast feeding to get the breast totally emptied, that it will not hurt the baby. This is on antibiotics. Breast milk is a sterile product, under most conditions.
Secondly, if you think there is some kind of s*** that doesn't have bacteria in it, including unhealthy bacteria, you have another think coming. If a cow is eating grass from the field, she is ingesting bacteria along with the grass.
Thirdly, milk can be contaminated in other ways, e.g. by the milking equipment, the containers, the teats themselves can be contamined.
That's like saving blood is sterile and safe- provided the person has no blood borne diseases. Well, obviously.
And yes, most things have bacteria on it (and if it does, it isn't sterile...just like breast milk with bacteria in it isn't sterile.) But there are bacteria that makes you sick and bacteria that doesn't...which is why raw milk has such a high risk of food borne illness.
And cows are designed to eat grass (and the bacteria on it.) They aren't designed to eat corn and a whole mess of other products. I'm not worried about what bacteria the cow is eating. I'm worried about if the cow herself is actually sick or not. Just like people, cows get sicker more often if they aren't eating a proper diet.
And yes, milk can be contaminated in any number of ways. One of them being mastitis.
That's like saving blood is sterile and safe- provided the person has no blood borne diseases. Well, obviously.
And yes, most things have bacteria on it (and if it does, it isn't sterile...just like breast milk with bacteria in it isn't sterile.) But there are bacteria that makes you sick and bacteria that doesn't...which is why raw milk has such a high risk of food borne illness.
And cows are designed to eat grass (and the bacteria on it.) They aren't designed to eat corn and a whole mess of other products. I'm not worried about what bacteria the cow is eating. I'm worried about if the cow herself is actually sick or not. Just like people, cows get sicker more often if they aren't eating a proper diet.
And yes, milk can be contaminated in any number of ways. One of them being mastitis.
Yes, blood is sterile inside the body in most cases. So is urine, and all body fluids other than feces.
What bacteria the cows are eating is relevant regarding what bacteria is in their feces. You made the astounding assertion that the feces of grass-fed cows are somehow not full of harmful bacteria.
I can't believe the word y*a*k didn't make it through the filter!
I was responding to someone talking about drinking the milk of another animal. Despite what many believe, bacteria do not discriminate between first world and developing world. These developing world citizens don't have stronger constitutions, just higher illness and death rates. Pastuerized milk is not a "problem".
I was being tongue-in-cheek with the "first world problem" comment. Meaning, only those with the luxury of having fresh, cold milk, pasteurized and homogenized, in their refrigerators would be worried about whether the processing might be making certain enzymes less effective and affecting the tasts. And I was also adding to your response about drinking the milk of another animal (and wondering what on earth was bleeped out, LOL).
One thing I don't understand: people have been drinking animal milk for years and years and years. Way back when, if someone ate, say, poisonous berries, and became sick, others would see that and wouldn't eat those berries. I'm thinking that lots of people were not getting sick from drinking milk, because they would have stopped drinking it and the practice would have died out. If it was a normal course of action to boil/heat it first, then pasteurization wouldn't have needed to be "invented" in order to stamp out illness; it may have evolved from other methods, but it wouldn't be some huge big deal (because it would have been being done all along, just like the cooking/smoking of meat).
So when and why did this become such a problem? Our digestive systems haven't changed over the last several hundred years, right? Interesting to think about.
Yes, blood is sterile inside the body in most cases. So is urine, and all body fluids other than feces.
What bacteria the cows are eating is relevant regarding what bacteria is in their feces. You made the astounding assertion that the feces of grass-fed cows are somehow not full of harmful bacteria.
No, I certainly did not. I said that corn-fed cows produce more feces, as much of their feed actually has a laxative effect. Go to a dairy farm and you'll see what I mean. I also asserted that corn-fed cows are more prone to illness that can be passed in the feces and milk, which I stand by.
And I wasn't talking about feces...I was talking about mastitis. You're the one making the assertion that milk is sterile and bacteria in milk can only come from the outside of the teat, which is simply not correct. Body fluids are sterile-- except when they aren't. It's when they aren't that I'm worried about it. That's why I'd wear gloves if I were going to touch the blood of a stranger
The Japanese started using pasteurization in the 1100's. People are discussing it as though it's an entirely modern concept. Humans have been drinking cow's milk for about 7,500 years.
Interesting article; thanks for posting. As a side note, going to the home page of that site makes me not want to eat anything, YUCK!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meaning, only those with the luxury of having fresh, cold milk, pasteurized and homogenized, in their refrigerators would be worried about whether the processing might be making certain enzymes less effective and affecting the tasts. And I was also adding to your response about drinking the milk of another animal (and wondering what on earth was bleeped out, LOL).
