regular or organic milk?

"Sue" wrote in
:

Regular because it's cheaper and I don't necessarily think
organic is better.

it's not so much that it's "better". it is more that the
farming practices that produce organic milk, meat or produce
are cleaner & more sustainable to the enviroment. being
tastier or more healthy is just a side benefit.
it is very expensive to change a farm over from conventional
pesticide/herbicide/antibiotic based to organic. it takes
several *years* of operating under organic guidelines before a
farm can become certified organic (to make sure all the
residual chemicals are gone). in the meantime the farmer is
using more expensive (usually because it involves more hands
on labor) organic methods & only getting standard pricing.
the first several years of converting to organic farming tend
to produce less quantity of "pretty" food, which is what
American consumers want to see, so income is lower. it makes
the incentive to change over less attractive.
lee market gardening organicly, but not certified

So in laymen's terms, what did the study show?
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In k.net,
Jeff wrote:

*
*"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
*
*(...)
*
* But BGH results in more infections, and more use of antibiotics, which
* DOES affect the milk -- so I'll stick with BGH free cows.
*
*Do you know how many more infections? And how much of an increase in
*antibiotics (assuming that antibiotics are not added to the feed)?
*
*I did a search in scholar.google.com and google.com (regular search) and
*didn't find any hard numbers.

My interest was piqued. I did a search of the veterinary resources at my
disposal. I found this:
--
A meta-analysis review of the effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin.
2. Effects on animal health, reproductive performance, and culling.
Can J Vet Res 67[4]:252-64 2003 Oct 54 Refs
Dohoo IR, DesCoteaux L, Leslie K, Fredeen A, Shewfelt W, Preston A,
Dowling P
Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island C1A 4P3.
This manuscript presents the results of a review of the effects of
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) on dairy cattle health,
reproductive performance, and culling, that was carried out by an expert
panel established by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA).
The panel was established by the CVMA in response to a request from Health
Canada in 1998 and their report was made public in 1999. A series of
meta-analyses was used to combine data on health-related parameters that
were extracted from all randomized clinical trials that had been published
in peer-reviewed journals or which were provided by Health Canada from the
submission by Monsanto for registration of rBST in Canada. A companion
paper (1) presents the estimates of the effect of the drug on production
parameters. Recombinant bovine somatotropin was found to increase the risk
of clinical mastitis by approximately 25% during the treatment period but
there was insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the effects of
the drug on the prevalence of subclinical intra-mammary infections. Use of
rBST increased the risk of a cow failing to conceive by approximately 40%.
For cows which did conceive, there was no effect on services per
conception and only a small increase in average days open (5 days). Use of
the drug had no effect on gestation length, but the information about a
possible effect on the risk of twinning was equivocal. Cows treated with
rBST had an estimated 55% increase in the risk of developing clinical
signs of lameness. Few studies reported data on culling, but based on
those that did, there appeared to be an increase risk of culling evident
in multiparous cows. Use of the drug in 1 lactation period appeared to
reduce the risk of metabolic diseases (particularly ketosis) in the early
period of the subsequent lactation.

--
Simulated effects on dairy cattle health of extending the voluntary
waiting period with recombinant bovine somatotropin.
Prev Vet Med 46[1]:29-50 2000 Jul 3
Allore HG, Erb HN
Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
We simulated the effect of extending the voluntary wait period by 100 days
on disorder-frequency measures that were based on cow-years (from
lactations completed during the 4-year simulation horizon), metric tons of
milk yield, and lactational incidence risks. A dynamic stochastic
discrete-event simulation model that focuses on clinical and subclinical
intramammary infections (IMI), plus clinical metabolic (left-displaced
abomasum, ketosis, milk fever) and reproductive (cystic ovarian disease,
dystocia, retained placenta, twinning, uterine infection) disorders in
dairy herds was used. Although the voluntary wait period was increased by
100 days (50 vs. 150), the predicted difference in simulated days to
conception was only 89 days for the extended voluntary wait-period group
(which we attributed to higher fertility later in lactation). Herds that
had a voluntary wait period of 150 days (compared to the control herds'
voluntary wait period of 50 days) were predicted to have significantly
lower rates of metabolic and reproductive disorders and clinical mastitis
on both cow-year and milk-yield bases. Simulated control herds, on
average, produced 8539 kg of milk in an average lactation of 325 days and
simulated herds with a 150-day voluntary wait period 10893 kg of milk in
an average lactation of 409 days. There was a significantly lower
predicted rate and risk of culling for reproductive failure in the
extended voluntary wait period group. The predicted lactational incidence
risks for subclinical IMI were 18% higher for the extended voluntary wait
period group - but extending the voluntary wait period by 100 days was
predicted not to increase the risk of any of the other 10 disorders.

--

A Protective Role For Anabolic
Agents In Disease ACVIM
2002 James L. Sartin, PhD, David G. Pugh, DVM, MS, Brian K. Whitlock, MS,
Christine Wagner, BS
Auburn, AL

Growth hormone and disease models IN CATTLE
Growth hormone (or recombinant bovine somatotropin; bST) treatment has
been attempted as a means of modifying disease responses in cattle. These
studies have used two different models of catabolic disease. One model
employs the injection of E. coli endotoxin (8) while the other is an
infection with Sarcocystis cruzi (9). In the endotoxin model of catabolic
disease, calves were treated with GH (bST, Monsanto, CO, St. Louis, MO;
0.1 mg/day) for 5 days, followed on day 6 by intravenous (IV) endotoxin
(055:B5; 0.2 µg/kg body weight). In this disease model, GH precedes the
catabolic event and the catabolic event is transient. Plasma tumor
necrosis factor alpha (TNF), cortisol, thromboxane B (TXB), and
prostacyclin concentrations were increased by endotoxin injection while
the GH treatment inhibited the increase in these markers for the acute
phase response. These data indicate that in this model, GH is effective in
altering the response of cattle to endotoxemia. Moreover, this study
indicates specific sites where GH may function in this model system. In
the second model, infection with the parasite S. cruzi, GH (12.5
mg/calf/day) was administered at day 20 postinfection and continued
through day 56 postinfection. Unlike the endotoxin model, this model had
GH administered after the infection was initiated and the calves are in a
long-term catabolic state. Infected calves had reductions in BUN, reduced
body fat, reduced total protein (evidence of protein catabolism), and
reduced plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) levels. Addition of GH
had no effect on BUN in infected calves, but did increase the rate of loss
of body fat. Interestingly, infected calves treated with GH had
significantly reduced small intestinal protein content compared to
intestine from infected calves not treated with GH. Perhaps the effects of
infection on nutrient absorptive abilities of the gut were further
impacted by the presence of GH. One hypothesis of this study was that GH
could maintain IGF-I concentrations during infection and maintain the calf
in an anabolic state. However, plasma IGF-I concentrations and IGF-I gene
expression were reduced by infection and the presence of GH could not
maintain plasma IGF-I concentrations nor gene expression. There was no
effect on GH binding sites in the liver or GH receptor gene expression.
The suggested mechanism for the downregulation of IGF-I was a defect in
the receptor signaling cascade. Thus, in this second model of a catabolic
disease, GH was unable to prevent lean tissue losses and actually
accelerated fat catabolism. Moreover, GH was unable to over come the
downregulation of plasma IGF-I concentrations. Therefore, GH was found
ineffective in this infectious disease model in maintaining an anabolic
state and in impacting in a positive manner on the disease process (9).
Further, interpretation of this data suggests that mechanisms of
hormone-disease interactions may differ between disease models employed
and are thus unlikely to revolve simply around the anabolic effects of GH.
--


--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

It's very interesting to hear about it though. It would be nice if organic
could be mainstrem. I am sure it is more healthier. I just don't know if it
would be easier to do.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
"Sue" wrote in
:

Regular because it's cheaper and I don't necessarily think
organic is better.

it's not so much that it's "better". it is more that the
farming practices that produce organic milk, meat or produce
are cleaner & more sustainable to the enviroment. being
tastier or more healthy is just a side benefit.
it is very expensive to change a farm over from conventional
pesticide/herbicide/antibiotic based to organic. it takes
several *years* of operating under organic guidelines before a
farm can become certified organic (to make sure all the
residual chemicals are gone). in the meantime the farmer is
using more expensive (usually because it involves more hands
on labor) organic methods & only getting standard pricing.
the first several years of converting to organic farming tend
to produce less quantity of "pretty" food, which is what
American consumers want to see, so income is lower. it makes
the incentive to change over less attractive.
lee market gardening organicly, but not certified

enigma wrote:
"Sue" wrote in
:

Regular because it's cheaper and I don't necessarily think
organic is better.

it's not so much that it's "better". it is more that the
farming practices that produce organic milk, meat or produce
are cleaner & more sustainable to the enviroment. being
tastier or more healthy is just a side benefit.
it is very expensive to change a farm over from conventional
pesticide/herbicide/antibiotic based to organic. it takes
several *years* of operating under organic guidelines before a
farm can become certified organic (to make sure all the
residual chemicals are gone). in the meantime the farmer is
using more expensive (usually because it involves more hands
on labor) organic methods & only getting standard pricing.
the first several years of converting to organic farming tend
to produce less quantity of "pretty" food, which is what
American consumers want to see, so income is lower. it makes
the incentive to change over less attractive.
lee market gardening organicly, but not certified

In the interests of watching oddles of parents give their kids organic
apples from the orchard down the street every fall, and seeing the kids
just pick up the apple and eat it (aaaagh!) without washing, I have to
comment. (And my comment is, 'hey, don't *do* that -- wash the sprays
off first!!')

Organic farming means using pesticides and herbicides, but they are
*naturally derived* versus *chemically synthesized*. I'm only (vaguely)
knowledgeable w/r/t fruit trees -- in this case, some organic
pesticides like sulphur, rotenone, and pyrethrum are broad-scale
killers of beneficial insects, taint the soil just like some
'conventional' pesticides, and have the 'high danger' warnings from the
EPA (rather, Kocide DF and lime sulfur do). It's a question of what you
use, when, and how you use it. IMO, some organic pesticides and
herbicides are cleaner and better for the environment, and some aren't.


And please *wash* the produce, first, before eating

Caledonia

"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the interests of watching oddles of parents give their kids organic
apples from the orchard down the street every fall, and seeing the kids
just pick up the apple and eat it (aaaagh!) without washing, I have to
comment. (And my comment is, 'hey, don't *do* that -- wash the sprays
off first!!')

I've always wondered -- does running it under the faucet *really*
wash teh sprays off? If so, then wouldn't they wash off during a
rainfall?


P. Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:
"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the interests of watching oddles of parents give their kids organic
apples from the orchard down the street every fall, and seeing the kids
just pick up the apple and eat it (aaaagh!) without washing, I have to
comment. (And my comment is, 'hey, don't *do* that -- wash the sprays
off first!!')

I've always wondered -- does running it under the faucet *really*
wash teh sprays off? If so, then wouldn't they wash off during a
rainfall?


P. Tierney

You know, I don't know. I know that Ye Olde Wisdom here is that heavy
rains stress the tree, hence spraying (before/after) is beneficial
because it protects the fruit while the tree is more stressed -- but I
don't know if sulfur, say, would just wash off. The optimal thing to do
is just to cut off the peel before eating the fruit; interestingly, my
experience with toddlers is that they uniformly refuse to eat the peel
regardless -- we joke about how it's an evolutionary trait.

I do the rub down wash under the faucet, probably to no good avail and
eat the peel myself. Bad mom.

It's really really tricky to grow apples without spraying *something*
often -- well nigh impossible, actually, based on my research. Hence,
apples are always being cited as one of those foods 'high in
pesticides' (either organic or chemically derived).

Caledonia

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...


P. Tierney wrote:
"Caledonia" wrote in message
ups.com...

In the interests of watching oddles of parents give their kids organic
apples from the orchard down the street every fall, and seeing the kids
just pick up the apple and eat it (aaaagh!) without washing, I have to
comment. (And my comment is, 'hey, don't *do* that -- wash the sprays
off first!!')

I've always wondered -- does running it under the faucet *really*
wash teh sprays off? If so, then wouldn't they wash off during a
rainfall?

You know, I don't know. I know that Ye Olde Wisdom here is that heavy
rains stress the tree, hence spraying (before/after) is beneficial
because it protects the fruit while the tree is more stressed -- but I
don't know if sulfur, say, would just wash off. The optimal thing to do
is just to cut off the peel before eating the fruit; interestingly, my
experience with toddlers is that they uniformly refuse to eat the peel
regardless --

Pretty much here too. And apples are easy to wash anyway
since they can be scrubbed. But I've wondered about that convention
wisdom for other more sensitive fruits -- like strawberrys or blueberries.
So they get a running under water here. Still, whether or not that
actually accomplishes anything is an open question to me.


P. Tierney

"P. Tierney" wrote in
newsX7oe.10434$_o.5528@attbi_s71:
Pretty much here too. And apples are easy to wash
anyway
since they can be scrubbed. But I've wondered about that
convention wisdom for other more sensitive fruits -- like
strawberrys or blueberries. So they get a running under
water here. Still, whether or not that actually
accomplishes anything is an open question to me.

i raise both strawberries & blueberries. neither one *ever*
gets sprayed with anything.
with strawberries, you lay down iron phosphate between the
rows just after bloom & cover (well, recover) under the plants
with straw to keep dirt off the berries. iron phosphate kills
slugs & acts as fertilizer, but isn't going to get on the
fruit & isn't harmful to humans (unless, i suppose, you decide
to sit down with a spoon & eat an entire package).
blueberries do get an annoying little worm, but those berries
are pretty easy to spot on the bush & not pick. i leave them
for the birds... which are my worst problem with berries if
it's not the wild birds getting in there, it's the chickens.
i rinse mine just to get any bird droppings off.
same with tomatoes. no need to spray, just handpick the
hornworm caterpillers. personally, i plant a secondary patch
of 'throw-away' tomatoes & move any hornworms from my
production garden to the throw-aways. they turn into
hummingbird moths, which are an important pollinator.
lee

In ,
Sue wrote:

*So in laymen's terms, what did the study show?

Cows getting the hormone had about 25% increased risk of symptomatic udder
infections. There was insufficient data to determine any effect of the
hormone on the incidence of asymptomatic udder infections. The hormone
also caused a 40% increase in cows' failing to conceive after breeding,
but for the cows who did conceieve, there was no difference in the number
of times (cough) it took them to conceive. There was no change in
length of gestation, but there may have been an effect on the incidence of
twins - they couldnt' tell. Treated cows had a 55% increase in clinical
lameness (which they don't say if these lamenesses were related to
infectious arthritides or other problems). Treatment with the hormone also
seemed to be associated with an increased risk of culling (being removed
from the herd, usually killed). Interestingly, also, treatment during any
period of lactation seemed to reduce the risk of metabolic disease during
subsequent lactations.

Also the hormone is effective in altering the response to endotoxemia (a
type of infection), and could be helpful in that regard, but was not
helpful in a certain kind of parasite infestation. Basically. Also that
different hormones probably affect response to different diseases
differently



--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Sue wrote:

*So in laymen's terms, what did the study show?

Cows getting the hormone had about 25% increased risk of symptomatic udder
infections. There was insufficient data to determine any effect of the
hormone on the incidence of asymptomatic udder infections. The hormone
also caused a 40% increase in cows' failing to conceive after breeding,
but for the cows who did conceieve, there was no difference in the number
of times (cough) it took them to conceive. There was no change in
length of gestation, but there may have been an effect on the incidence of
twins - they couldnt' tell. Treated cows had a 55% increase in clinical
lameness (which they don't say if these lamenesses were related to
infectious arthritides or other problems). Treatment with the hormone also
seemed to be associated with an increased risk of culling (being removed
from the herd, usually killed). Interestingly, also, treatment during any
period of lactation seemed to reduce the risk of metabolic disease during
subsequent lactations.

Also the hormone is effective in altering the response to endotoxemia (a
type of infection), and could be helpful in that regard, but was not
helpful in a certain kind of parasite infestation. Basically. Also that
different hormones probably affect response to different diseases
differently



--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx