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 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.
Well, yes and no. That's only true of this one particular type of E.Coli (which granted is one of the worst). But E. Coli as a group is more common in grain fed than grass fed, and there is more than one kind of E. Coli that can make you ill.
Also, the speculation is that grass or grain fed, keeping cattle confined to feed lots or factory farming conditions leads to increased reinfection, so an animal never really has a chance to be clear for long without getting infected from the cow next to it. The question is if grass fed cattle owned by 'family farmers' are less likely to have this particular pathogen than large operations, and that question has not been adequately answered.
Also, reports have shown that the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 IS increased in cattle who have Distiller's grain added to their corn mix, which is common practice.
And that's the problem with the previous studies- they looked at grain vs. grass, not the full diet each type is fed (and again not the effects of environment and number of cattle.) Without the Disteller's grain, you'll get an artificially low number. While both grass and grain fed do have E.Coli, grain fed with Disteller's grain still has a higher incidence (Disteller's being a byproduct based on corn)
Well, yes and no. That's only true of this one particular type of E.Coli (which granted is one of the worst). But E. Coli as a group is more common in grain fed than grass fed, and there is more than one kind of E. Coli that can make you ill.
Also, the speculation is that grass or grain fed, keeping cattle confined to feed lots or factory farming conditions leads to increased reinfection, so an animal never really has a chance to be clear for long without getting infected from the cow next to it. The question is if grass fed cattle owned by 'family farmers' are less likely to have this particular pathogen than large operations, and that question has not been adequately answered.
Also, reports have shown that the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 IS increased in cattle who have Distiller's grain added to their corn mix, which is common practice.
And that's the problem with the previous studies- they looked at grain vs. grass, not the full diet each type is fed (and again not the effects of environment and number of cattle.) Without the Disteller's grain, you'll get an artificially low number. While both grass and grain fed do have E.Coli, grain fed with Disteller's grain still has a higher incidence (Disteller's being a byproduct based on corn)
I fear we have hijacked this thread. Anway, here is an interesting literature review on the subject before we get into trouble:
True, true...it is an interesting and complex topic, but I'll let it alone.
On the raw milk note...I wonder if the Maasai often become sick from spoiled milk? They either drink the milk fresh or cook it over a fire, but it isn't pasteurized by any means. Of course it would be hard to determine milk-borne illness from water borne in the area. I also wonder if they don't have an easier time coping with milk-borne pathogens because they've been raised drinking raw milk for many generations.
On the raw milk note...I wonder if the Maasai often become sick from spoiled milk? They either drink the milk fresh or cook it over a fire, but it isn't pasteurized by any means. Of course it would be hard to determine milk-borne illness from water borne in the area. I also wonder if they don't have an easier time coping with milk-borne pathogens because they've been raised drinking raw milk for many generations.
Well their diet also consists of raw meat and blood, so I suspect raw milk is the least of their exposure. Interestingly over 50% of Maasai are lactose intolerant.
True, true...it is an interesting and complex topic, but I'll let it alone.
On the raw milk note...I wonder if the Maasai often become sick from spoiled milk? They either drink the milk fresh or cook it over a fire, but it isn't pasteurized by any means. Of course it would be hard to determine milk-borne illness from water borne in the area. I also wonder if they don't have an easier time coping with milk-borne pathogens because they've been raised drinking raw milk for many generations.
I doubt they're cope with milk-borne pathogens any better than the rest of us. After all, pasteurization has not been with us all that long, and it was "invented" to solve the problem.
Well their diet also consists of raw meat and blood, so I suspect raw milk is the least of their exposure. Interestingly over 50% of Maasai are lactose intolerant.
Okay, last post on the issue so I don't hijack the thread again...but I didn't know that and it's frankly fascinating.
Someone further up thread noted that people generally avoid food that repeatedly makes them sick, so it seems odd that some cultures have developed to drink raw milk as a primary foodstuff, despite the assumed risk. But the Maasai are in a protein deprived area, so the risk of drinking raw milk would be offset by the reality of malnutrition. I've seen pro-ralw milk sites uses the Maasai as an example of why raw milk is safe, which strikes me as completely missing the reality of life in those areas.
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.
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]
So many misleading and just plain false statements thay I don't know where to start !
....." almost all corn grown in the US goes to feed livestock "...
Except for corn sold for food, sold for ethanol , or exported.
--" livestock "---also means chickens, hogs, and beef cattle in feedlots.
I don't know any dairy that doesn't feed at least 60% of the dairy cow ration forages.
Why so you think in the #1 dairy county in Minnesota ( Stearns ) they have 2x a month tested hay ( alfalfa ) auctions from October thru May ?
Despite lots of alfalfa grown by dairy farmers in Stearns County,there are auctions where 180 loads are sold ranging from 20 tons - 25 tons per load.
( Gee, I thought dairy cows only got fed corn )....sarc
---"the average lifespan of a cow is 25 years '----FALSE
Even beef cows who live on pasture start losing their teeth at about 10 years old and thus have a hard time grazing grass or eating hay
---the antibiotics then enter the meat supply----FALSE
Every dairy farmer knows if they use antibiotics on a cow they have lost the option of selling her to slaughter for 30 days.
Selling before then would be illegal and dairy farmers are not gonna risk the fine $$$$$$$$$$ and the publicity of getting their name in the paper.
You keep talking about----------" sick cows "--, a sick cow produces very little milk and thus is unprofitable.
Treating that cow with antibiotics ensures that he can't sell the milk for 4 days and can't cull her for 30 days after treatment
A cow that needs antibiotics better not need it often as she will be too unprofitable to keep around
OK, let's get back to the topic at hand, which is raw milk vs. pasteurized milk for kids. Thanks.
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.
