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.
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.
It sometimes takes a long time to make the association between "milk" and "sick", or any food and sick. "Germ theory" hasn't been around all that long in the history of humankind.
From a healthy cow, milk in the udder is sterile but becomes naturally
contaminated on leaving the udder. Cows suffering various diseases can produce milk
possessing the pathogens. Prior to pasteurization and screening herds for tuberculosis and other
diseases, milk was a major transmission vehicle of tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis), Q fever
and some other diseases.
BTW, ParallelJJCat, here is your quote I was responding to:
Quote:
So cows that are sick are going to produce feces that are more likely to causes contamination of the udder area (and the milk) than healthy cows.
Sure they do. No where in that statement do I make a claim otherwise. But a sick animal is more likely to have a higher level of contaminants and may have different contaminants that are more likely to cause infection in humans. That's simple science. Are you really suggesting that the health of the animal has no bearing on the end product that results, be it meat or dairy?
Sure they do. No where in that statement do I make a claim otherwise. But a sick animal is more likely to have a higher level of contaminants and may have different contaminants that are more likely to cause infection in humans. That's simple science. Are you really suggesting that the health of the animal has no bearing on the end product that results, be it meat or dairy?
No. Why are you trying to twist my words? Corn, in and of itself, does not contain any harmful bacteria.
No. Why are you trying to twist my words? Corn, in and of itself, does not contain any harmful bacteria.
Again, didn't say it did. Fast food doesn't contain harmful bacteria either but if you eat enough of it, it will cause adverse health affects, including a weakened immune system that makes you more likely to get infections. Corn is like fast food for cows. They aren't designed to eat it, which is why corn-fed cows are more prone to liver diseases and ulcers. With weakened immune systems, they are more likely to get bacterial infections and those infections have the potential of causing food illness in humans.
Grass-fed cows have 80% less E.coli in their intestines than corn fed. The E. coli they do carry is less likely to causes disease in humans. They also carry much less campylobacter.
What you feed a cow matters in terms of the animal's health, which in turn matters for food safety. There is a difference between feeding corn and grass- not even dairy farmers/meat farmers debate this. It comes down to cost and efficiency.
Again, didn't say it did. Fast food doesn't contain harmful bacteria either but if you eat enough of it, it will cause adverse health affects, including a weakened immune system that makes you more likely to get infections. Corn is like fast food for cows. They aren't designed to eat it, which is why corn-fed cows are more prone to liver diseases and ulcers. With weakened immune systems, they are more likely to get bacterial infections and those infections have the potential of causing food illness in humans.
Grass-fed cows have 80% less E.coli in their intestines than corn fed. The E. coli they do carry is less likely to causes disease in humans. They also carry much less campylobacter.
What you feed a cow matters in terms of the animal's health, which in turn matters for food safety. There is a difference between feeding corn and grass- not even dairy farmers/meat farmers debate this. It comes down to cost and efficiency.
So you don't think that eating high-fat, unhealthy foods has any effect on the immune system?
Here' some data from Dairy farmers on publications talking the levels of dangerous E.coli in cattle and how switching from grain-fed (corn) to grass feed causes a dramatic drop in levels. In this case, what's happening is the extra grain and starch alters the balance of the digestive system, allowing bacteria to thrive.
Notice also the last statement that the economics of switching have to be considered (before the food safety aspects, one assumes)
The study that determined these levels was done at Cornell...these are not things that are on the fringe or only spoken of by animal rights people. This is all just a factor in dairy production.
Grass-fed cows have 80% less E.coli in their intestines than corn fed. The E. coli they do carry is less likely to causes disease in humans. They also carry much less campylobacter.
Sorry, but that's just not true. Add to that the now famous research on fecal shed rates where cattle were intentionally fed E. Coli O157:H7 (the really bad kind), the grass fed cattle took 42 days before fecal shed (E.Coli present in poop) was clear vs. 4 days in corn fed cattle.
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).
