Is pasteurized milk really bad?

[Guest guest]

I have emailed Sally

[Guest guest]

> Nor would I necessarily put cooking and

> pasteurization in the same category, seems to me you would have to

define

> cooking so we would know what you mean by the term. Kind of like the

> difference between lightly sauteing and deep frying for example.

I am not sure how to define these terms. I guess what I mean by

cooking is heating food at or beoynd temperature at which enzyme are

destroyed and/or proteins are denatured. This definition allows me to

put cooking and pasteurization in the same category.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Bianca-

>I think we need to slow down a bit before we charge Sally with an

>unvalidated, unscientific statement. She could be wrong, but she might be

>right too, and I need more than what I'm seeing so far before I dismiss

>her statement as false.

For sure, but statements like that which just _seem_ wrong ought to be

footnoted if possible to avoid this very kind of problem.

-

[Guest guest]

Clearview Acres' post on this matter should be well regarded in that

I will hear people who are eating a 12 pack of mountain Dew and

french fries for breakfast every other day tell me I feel fine. You

say all these foods are bad for me but I've been doing this for years

and I'm fine, my uncle has smoked pot and ate jelly beans for the

last 40 years and he's " doing fine " . My question here is

always, " compared to what? " So although this particular quote

regarding calf death does need clarification the statemet of 'calves

do fine on pasturized milk' whether it be goats, sheep, or cows this

is an extremely suspect position to take. " fine " relative to what.

I'm no farmer and I the majority of group members here are not either

however I think most of us would agree that the current status of

farm animals both in their breed status and overall species status

with only a few exceptions are poor examples of " good health " these

animals although they do survive have suffered in development and

health from poor nutrition and care just as humans have. So there is

definite need for clarification from Sally, to take the position that

these animals 'do fine' on pasturized milk for my money is a far more

slippery slope and a far less credible position. We do not want to

make outright wrong statements however I can promise you it will

happen. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that Sally is wrong or

that she made an inflamatory statement like this without any proof,

lets not loose sight of what's ultimately important here. Does your

common sense suggest to you that the offspring of these animals

should have anything fed to them besides the unadulterated milk of

their parents? I am not saying the burden of proof shouldn't be

there, but right now for this moment before we have a definitive

answer just ask yourself this question before making more assumptions

and taking a new position.

DMM

[Guest guest]

a sad note on the calf mortality rate due to rbgh the death rate if you are

doing a good job of healthy cows and their offspring is about 7 to 10% for

calves. On a farm of 600 cows (due to expand to 1200 soon) is 40% they are very

high on rBGH and are constantly buying cows and what calfs they do get from the

cows they buy most die in 24 hours.

This statistic is very interesting, I did not know this. My parents dairy farm

and need to sell heifer calves because they would not be able to keep all of

those that their cows have, they have no intention of expanding! They feel so

bad selling them to these huge dairies, but what else should they do? Most of

the little farmers around here need to sell their heifer calves. The last few

times they sold animals the prices went really high here in Wisconsin. I could

not believe how much they were getting for these animals! I remember when heifer

calves went for maybe $100. They just attributed it to the need for these big

dairies because they are only able to use the cow for 1-2 lactations before she

is done after being pushed so hard.

Grace,

a Augustine

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger.

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.

I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye.

--anonymous

[Guest guest]

> I will hear people who are eating a 12 pack of mountain Dew and

> french fries for breakfast every other day tell me I feel fine.

You

> say all these foods are bad for me but I've been doing this for

years

> and I'm fine, my uncle has smoked pot and ate jelly beans for the

> last 40 years and he's " doing fine " . My question here is

> always, " compared to what? " So although this particular quote

> regarding calf death does need clarification the statemet

of 'calves

> do fine on pasturized milk' whether it be goats, sheep, or cows

this

> is an extremely suspect position to take. " fine " relative to

what.

> I'm no farmer and I the majority of group members here are not

either

> however I think most of us would agree that the current status of

> farm animals both in their breed status and overall species status

> with only a few exceptions are poor examples of " good health "

I agree and I am a farmer. The farmer (not me I do what I am told

until we get to our own farm) here thinks his cows are in " good

health " but when you look at these organic cows they are losing

hair, hoof problems, DON'T settle (take a preg), have 3 quater teats,

mastitis often, the list goes on. Yes they look like cows and give

milk and would be " concidered " fine and healthy. But will they live

a mature productive life ? I think not. I think this is the same

for humans. If you like the way you feel when you drink your

processed milk go for it, it is your right. But you WILL have

problems some where down the road and most likely be in a nursing

home finishing off your time.

Barb in MO for now

these

> animals although they do survive have suffered in development and

> health from poor nutrition and care just as humans have. So there

is

> definite need for clarification from Sally, to take the position

that

> these animals 'do fine' on pasturized milk for my money is a far

more

> slippery slope and a far less credible position. We do not want to

> make outright wrong statements however I can promise you it will

> happen. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that Sally is wrong

or

> that she made an inflamatory statement like this without any proof,

> lets not loose sight of what's ultimately important here. Does

your

> common sense suggest to you that the offspring of these animals

> should have anything fed to them besides the unadulterated milk of

> their parents? I am not saying the burden of proof shouldn't be

> there, but right now for this moment before we have a definitive

> answer just ask yourself this question before making more

assumptions

> and taking a new position.

>

> DMM

[Guest guest]

I suppose by it's the very nature of the process that calf milk replacer

would be pasteurized. Calf milk replacer is made of dried whey, soy flour,

animal & vegetable fat, dried skim milk, dried milk protein, vitamins,

minerals, etc. If heating milk is considered pasteurization than it would

follow that the process used to dry milk would involve heat. Dried milk

undergoes one of the processes which we all trying to avoid by drinking raw

milk. Whey is a by-product of cheese making, which is normally pasteurized

(attested by the fact that many on this list go to extremes to procure raw

cheese). As compared to raw milk, calf milk replacer is a very far cry from

raw.

Carmen

<<<<< Hold on a minute. How do you know

pasteurized milk does not kill calves before or near maturity? You

mention milk replacer is successfully fed to calves. The milk

replacer I've seen is not pasteurized milk. Milk replacer is powdered

formula which has water added just prior to use. >>>>>

[Guest guest]

I think that this the big question. How were the studies are conducted?

Even a calf left with it's mother and exposed to hay/grass will naturally

begin to nibble on it at about a week old. They are developing their rumen,

the very part of their anatomy that makes them " ruminants " . I think the

operative word here is " alone " . I'm not convinced that a calf raised on any

liquid diet for six months would survive. It's totally unnatural for them to

do so.

Was there another group of calves raised on raw milk " alone " to see what

happened to them?

Carmen

<<<<<< If a calf is fed pasteurized milk alone for 6 months as in the

natural

setting it will die.

ME: This is an extremely helpful statement and indicates to me why we

should proceed with caution on this thread before we actually know how

the experiments were conducted. Perhaps this is what they did. Does

anyone know at this point? I don't think so. So lets give Sally the

benefit of the doubt until we know for sure otherwise. >>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

> Yesterday I ate a buffalo patty from trader joe's -- raw. I had two

defrosting

> on the counter and my sig. other had to leave before dinnertime.

The

> packaging said all natural, no horomones, etc., and I speculated

buffalo

> would be grown on the range (or is it just the song?).

--snip--

No, you can't assume bison (buffalo) is range fed. Most is not. I

can't find the article that discusses this. I did notice that the

bison sold by our local grocery store (Fred Meyer) is proudly labeled

as grain fed. It seems, those selling bison calves are grain feeding

to increase weight, and therefore price. As usual, quantity is prized

over quality. I buy mine (unfrozen) from Northstar Bison

http://www.northstarbison.com/ . I eat it raw (chuck roasts and

organs). I don't like the texture of raw hamburger.

Portland, OR

[Guest guest]

-

>Then where's the evidence?

The evidence is in the current health of domestic cats: it's poor. Cancer

and many other ailments are rising dramatically. Now it's certainly true

that the cooked cat food of today is far superior to the cooked cat food of

Pottenger's experiments -- manufacturers have plugged some of the most

critical holes in their formulations -- but that doesn't mean it's actually

good or that those cats are very healthy.

>However, it has yet to be demonstrated scientifically

Am I correct in understanding that your opinion is that " science " is

limited to " clinical trials " ?

-

[Guest guest]

Alec-

>If people on SAD are Fine then why is 80% of Americans over the age of 25

>overweight? Why is obesity in children a problem that didn't exist 20

>years ago? When I was in school there was maybe one fat kid in a class.

Quite so. I sometimes think that " fine " in newspeak means " practically at

death's door " .

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >Then where's the evidence?

>

> The evidence is in the current health of domestic cats: it's poor.

Cancer

> and many other ailments are rising dramatically.

That's not evidence. You have to show scientifically:

1. That cancer and other ailments in cats is increasing

2. That cooked food causes these increases

3. That the cat research applies to humans also

Where are your cites?

[Guest guest]

I am passionate about research and credibility just as you

are, however there are times that your own two eyes and some common

sense are far more accurate than " cites " for you to question the

legitimacy of the deteriorating health and function of domestic

animals in the year 2002 you have left your thinking cap at home. If

you want " cites " in order to know more specifics that's one thing

however you need no more " evidence " than to simply pay attention. I

can demonstrate to you with " scientific proof " that your hand is not

really your hand, that it is actually mostly empty space but you know

what who cares about this " proof " both my eyes and your eyes along

with our common sense says your hand is your hand. As my friend Ayn

Rand might say A is A. And you don't need " cites " to know that this

is true. Please don't get me wrong... I agree with your call for

cited demonstration however you are speaking as if somehow a

conversation is only valid if it has scientific cites. As if because

science has investigated something it is therefore valid. Again I

encourage you to trust your own two eyes and your own common sense a

little more in addition to the citations you are looking for.

As always you have my utmost respect but I think your overstating

this one.

DMM

> > -

> >

> > >Then where's the evidence?

> >

> > The evidence is in the current health of domestic cats: it's

poor.

> Cancer

> > and many other ailments are rising dramatically.

>

> That's not evidence. You have to show scientifically:

>

> 1. That cancer and other ailments in cats is increasing

> 2. That cooked food causes these increases

> 3. That the cat research applies to humans also

>

> Where are your cites?

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

wrote:

> I am passionate about research and credibility just as you

> are, however there are times that your own two eyes and some common

> sense are far more accurate than " cites " for you to question the

> legitimacy of the deteriorating health and function of domestic

> animals in the year 2002 you have left your thinking cap at home.

I think sticking to logical arguments is better than this.

>If you want " cites " in order to know more specifics that's one thing

> however you need no more " evidence " than to simply pay attention.

I

> can demonstrate to you with " scientific proof " that your hand is

not

> really your hand, that it is actually mostly empty space

But someone with good critical thinking would most likely find a flaw

in such a " proof " .

> what who cares about this " proof " both my eyes and your eyes along

> with our common sense says your hand is your hand.

....

>I encourage you to trust your own two eyes and your own common

>sense...

If you want to affect an established opinion, you would need to come

up with something better than " trust your own eyes " kind of

statements. Especially, when you're in a courtroom. My own eyes and

common sense used to tell me that eating meat was not natural, even

though I ate it. They now tell me the opposite. Also, according to

most people's common sense, microbes are the causes of diseases. But

there are others among us whose common sense tells them otherwise.

Whose sense is " smarter " and to be trusted? As a matter of fact, it's

current common sense that dietary cholesterol and saturated fats clog

arteries. I don't think you believe that. One cannot rely only on

common sense in science because personal biases come into play, and

certain rules have been invented to balance these biases.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Roman-

> > can demonstrate to you with " scientific proof " that your hand is

>not

> > really your hand, that it is actually mostly empty space

>

>But someone with good critical thinking would most likely find a flaw

>in such a " proof " .

Actually, your hand _is_ mostly empty space.

That doesn't mean that's the functionally effective truth in everyday life,

of course, but it is true.

As to the more general point that people with good critical thinking skills

can find flaws in clinical studies which demonstrate this, that or the

other ridiculous thing (like saturated fat is bad, people require a

high-grain diet for health, etc.) all I can say is NO! The medical and

scientific world isn't filled with idiots. Even the best and the brightest

get suckered. And it's that much easier to fail to see through the BS when

the many hidden assumptions and deformations are kept secret.

Clinical studies are important, of course, but when dealing with complex

systems (like human physiology) the notion that they're always superior to,

say, epidemiology, is flawed. Those studies which " prove " that this drug

or that food are heart-healthy because they lower bogus indicators like

total cholesterol are only the simplest examples of bad science. And more

importantly, there's more to science than clinical studies.

Yes, in a courtroom or a pamphlet or a discussion with the skeptical,

Mike's dashed-off email would be a problem. But this is a discussion board

of relatively like-minded people, and I think we all understood he didn't

actually mean that grains of corn were floating around in mother's milk. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

Roman, I am not in a courtroom, and I am not trying to change anyones

opinion, I have learned after years of trying that's not possible.

I am having conversation with like minded people who shouldn't NEED

proof to validate the horrific condition of the health of modern day

domesticated animals. It's not rocket science.

Again I am not disputing the importance of research however just

because " research " says it's so, it ain't necessarily so. There is

plenty of research available about cholesterol and the other examples

that you've sited and its obviously wrong, however do you really

think that if you debated john robbins on this topic that you would

wow him with your proof (which I agree with) and all of a sudden he

would change his mind. Come on, it doesn't work that way. The

research is important however you ultimately have to do one of two

things trust your own judgement that A is A or you have to blindly go

in faith that the research you are looking at is true... At this

moment I believe we just arrived at hair splitting and we are not

debating anything important enough to debate So I want you to know I

love your presence on this group along with s, have a great

weekend and I am going to bed. Enuf said :-))))

DMM

DMM

> > I am passionate about research and credibility just as you

> > are, however there are times that your own two eyes and some

common

> > sense are far more accurate than " cites " for you to question the

> > legitimacy of the deteriorating health and function of domestic

> > animals in the year 2002 you have left your thinking cap at

home.

>

>

> I think sticking to logical arguments is better than this.

>

>

> >If you want " cites " in order to know more specifics that's one

thing

> > however you need no more " evidence " than to simply pay

attention.

> I

> > can demonstrate to you with " scientific proof " that your hand is

> not

> > really your hand, that it is actually mostly empty space

>

>

> But someone with good critical thinking would most likely find a

flaw

> in such a " proof " .

>

>

> > what who cares about this " proof " both my eyes and your eyes

along

> > with our common sense says your hand is your hand.

> ...

> >I encourage you to trust your own two eyes and your own common

> >sense...

>

> If you want to affect an established opinion, you would need to

come

> up with something better than " trust your own eyes " kind of

> statements. Especially, when you're in a courtroom. My own eyes and

> common sense used to tell me that eating meat was not natural, even

> though I ate it. They now tell me the opposite. Also, according to

> most people's common sense, microbes are the causes of diseases.

But

> there are others among us whose common sense tells them otherwise.

> Whose sense is " smarter " and to be trusted? As a matter of fact,

it's

> current common sense that dietary cholesterol and saturated fats

clog

> arteries. I don't think you believe that. One cannot rely only on

> common sense in science because personal biases come into play, and

> certain rules have been invented to balance these biases.

>

> Roman

[Guest guest]

> Roman-

>

> Those studies which " prove " that this drug

> or that food are heart-healthy because they lower bogus indicators

like

> total cholesterol are only the simplest examples of bad science.

Yes, but they put their cards (studies) on the table to make their

proof, so people like Uffe Ravnskov and Enig and check them out

and see if two and two add up. When we say that its common sense

that " fine " isn't good enough, then we are not holding ourselves to

the same level of accountability that we are expecting from people

with opposing views. How does that make WAP look?

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>***I'm afraid that this book is not a good example of well-documented

>research. It was actually written for his client base in Australia (not for

>a worldwide public), is not footnoted, and is poorly edited.

That's disappointing. Perhaps some day he'll write a revised version

that's better-edited and documented properly.

Certainly I've seen the effectiveness of the diet enough to believe that

it's either the complete truth or very close to it, far superior to modern

conventional pet diets.

>Just curious - do you have a dog and do you BARF?

Not presently, but if and when I get another dog, I'll BARF. My mom's dog

is BARFed, and he does great on it except when his diet strays too much

towards battery-chicken wings. (It's almost as hard to get good food for a

dog as it is for a person, unfortunately.) (I brought some kidneys over to

him today, and my god, you've never seen a happier dog!)

>BUT, genetics suck, frankly, among

>many dog breeds because they've been bred for conformation (beauty pageants)

>at the expensive of health.

That is true, and I'm guilty of simplifying. Many breeds have been

terribly abused by lousy breeders. I would say, though, that even those

lousily-bred dogs with crap genes do enormously better on BARF than on

store-bought dog food, and can generally achieve decent health.

Your point about vaccinations is well-taken too, though it's not always

easy to avoid them.

>The consensus among NR breeders is that the more

>generations they get AWAY FROM commercial foods, vaccines and drugs, the

>more robust and healthy the dogs become. So, second generation raw-fed, no

>vaccs and no drugs dogs are healthier than 1st generation and so on. I'm

>SURE there are parallels in humans.

Quite true, and I agree, I think the parallels in humans are probably

striking. I'd like to see more solid epidemiological analyses, but those

would be difficult to fund and carry out, let alone publish.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

>***I'm afraid that this book is not a good example of well-documented

>research. It was actually written for his client base in Australia (not for

>a worldwide public), is not footnoted, and is poorly edited.

>>>>That's disappointing. Perhaps some day he'll write a revised version

that's better-edited and documented properly.

***He has! He's just published his third book, I think the title is simply

" BARF. " I don't have it, but have been told it's a vast improvement on his

first in terms of editing and referencing (I think). But keep in mind, he's

just one of a number of authors who are promoting a natural diet for dogs.

There's Lonsdale, an Aussie vet who specializes in dentistry. His book " Raw

Meaty Bones " actually has some intriguing parallels to NAPD - both looking

at the health state of a species through its dental health. There's also

Kymythy Schulze, Vollhard, Levy, Pitcairn and there are a few more

books due out this year from other authors. The only reason I mention this

is because I think the Billinghurst approach is good, but one among many. I

have seen in the pet health community a little too much 'guru-ization' of

Dr. B particularly, and not enough critical analysis of his work. So I like

to mention that there are others who've made important contributions to our

knowledge of healthy canine diets

>>>>Certainly I've seen the effectiveness of the diet enough to believe that

it's either the complete truth or very close to it, far superior to modern

conventional pet diets.

***Not the complete truth I assure you But yes - very close to it, and

FAR superior to the denatured and contaminated concoctions the pet food

manufacturers produce.

>Just curious - do you have a dog and do you BARF?

>>>>Not presently, but if and when I get another dog, I'll BARF. My mom's

dog

is BARFed, and he does great on it except when his diet strays too much

towards battery-chicken wings.

****This is a problem I see among many barfers - too much battery raised

chicken. This often results in itchy dogs, due, I think to an imbalanced EFA

profile of the diet. Chicken RMBs are in the neighborhood of 20% fat (not

including skin - which adds quite a bit more). Of that fat approx. another

20% is Linoleic Acid. I've searched about a bit to try to figure out what

the lipid profile is of the dog's evolutionary diet (prior to domestication,

when they were grey wolves), and as far as I can tell, it's not nearly that

high in LA. High amounts of LA require high amounts of n-3 fatty acids to

produce a healthier EFA ratio (and less itching). So, many folks who are

relying heavily on chicken RMBs end up supplementing with fish or flax oil,

which, of course, may cause other problems (peroxidation, for example).

Part of the problem is that chicken is the most readily availed RMB for many

folks. But unfortunately, domestic fowl doesn't resemble *anything* in the

dogs evolutionary diet, and they probably haven't evolved the ability to

thrive on a diet high in LA, lower in carnitine (than some red meats), and

probably other nutrient variances. Of course a fresh food diet is in general

better than commercial foods...

>The consensus among NR breeders is that the more

>generations they get AWAY FROM commercial foods, vaccines and drugs, the

>more robust and healthy the dogs become. So, second generation raw-fed, no

>vaccs and no drugs dogs are healthier than 1st generation and so on. I'm

>SURE there are parallels in humans.

>>>>>Quite true, and I agree, I think the parallels in humans are probably

striking. I'd like to see more solid epidemiological analyses, but those

would be difficult to fund and carry out, let alone publish.

***That is why anecdotal information is often as valuable, IMO, if not more

valuable, than scientific studies in some instances. Both in regards to pets

and humans. We know that studies are often bought and paid for by industry.

Same thing in regards to pet foods. No one is going to fund a study on how

healthy BARF or other natural diet plans are, because no one will profit

from such a study. Therefore, we have to consider anecdotal accounts from NR

breeders and other long-time raw diet feeders and consider what we learn

from them as much as what we learn from Hills research labs. But then I'm

preaching to the choir, aren't I?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Kris,

No, as stated in an earlier post, baby dairy goats are frequently fed

pasteurized goat milk as opposed even to raw milk directly from their mother

in order to prevent certain diseases being passed on to the offspring. If

available, pasteurized goats milk is considered a better substitute than

milk replacer.

Carmen.

<<<<< Might it be that the additives in the milk replacer for

goats contains things that compensate for what is lacking in the

pasteurized

milk? In other words, goats raised on the milk of their healthy mothers

would do well, but if they received just pasteurized goat milk without the

additives they would run into problems?

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio >>>>>

[Guest guest]

,

To change the tone of this discussion a little -- knowing the difficulties

in doing scientific research, and the complexities of our diets and our

health, perhaps we could have some suggestions for just what specific

research projects could we propose to prove the point that raw milk is

better than pasteurized milk for human beings. Any graduate students out

there interested in working on this project? Who would be willing to fund

it, assuming it might take some money?

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

----- Original Message -----

From: justinbond <justin_bond@...>

< >

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:40 PM

Subject: Re: Is pasteurized milk really bad?

>

> > Roman-

> >

> > Those studies which " prove " that this drug

> > or that food are heart-healthy because they lower bogus indicators

> like

> > total cholesterol are only the simplest examples of bad science.

>

> Yes, but they put their cards (studies) on the table to make their

> proof, so people like Uffe Ravnskov and Enig and check them out

> and see if two and two add up. When we say that its common sense

> that " fine " isn't good enough, then we are not holding ourselves to

> the same level of accountability that we are expecting from people

> with opposing views. How does that make WAP look?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Here is one reference I found:

From Food is Your Best Medicine, by Henry Bieler, pg 213

" Thomson of Edinburgh reports another test with twin calves, one

suckled, and the other fed on pasteurized milk. The first was

healthy but the second died within sixty days. This experiment was

repeated many times. "

> Looks like you all have beat this one to death over the weekend, I

hope you

> don't mind if I add a little more to the conversation.

> I'm still hoping someone has contacted Sally on this and that we

will here

> from her. I'm sure the statement didn't just come from nowhere and

I for one

> would like to know what the basis of the statement is. (Re: " Calves

fed

> pasteurized milk die before maturity. " )

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Do they look at nutrition beyond what the FDA requires to be listed on the

milk

carton? What about antibodies, protein and fat alteration? The " could not

detect any difference in the nutritive value for calf feeding between milk so

heated and raw milk. " doesn't specify wheather the calf's health or milk's

nutritional analysis is the criteria.

Wanita

At 01:22 PM 3/25/02 -0800, Carmen wrote:

For what it's worth, I have an edition of Dairy Science Its Principles and

Practice Second Edition by W. E. , PhD. Professor of Dairy Husbandry

University of Minnesota Copyright 1950. I realize this is old, but I did at

least find some relevant information to our conversation an perhaps be

appreciated by those who like written documentation of studies and such in

addition to the testimony of real life experiences

> " Pasteurization of milk. The question would naturally arise as to whether

>pasteurization of milk would have any effect upon its nutritive value. The

>California Station (Roadhouse and . Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ.

>319.1930.) heated milk to 170 degrees F. and could not detect any difference

>in the nutritive value for calf feeding between milk so heated and raw

>milk. "

>

>Carmen

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I have been researching the subject of feeding calves and this is

what I have come up with--please post this on the chat group.

Regarding the statement that calves fed pasteurized milk die before

maturity, we have on our Board an ex-dairy farmer from New Zealand.

He read the brochure when we were working on it and I brought this

subject up to him again. He remembers a study that was done in

Australia (but I don't have a reference for this) in which they fed

calves pasteurized milk and they died.

I then had a long conversation with his nephew who raises calves in

New Zealand. The calves are then sold to dairies. He raises the

calves on raw milk. They have access to hay from birth and are given

a mixture of barley, corn and molasses at 2 weeks. But they stay on

the raw milk until 12-14 weeks of age. He confirmed the truth of the

statement--if the calves are fed pasteurized milk, they do not reach

maturity.

I asked him about milk replacments. He said that some calf-raisers

use the milk replacement but he said these calves are much more

delicate. They must be kept inside and warm, but not crowded because

they bruise easily. I asked him whether he thought using the milk

replacement was one reason that dairy cows now have such short lives

and he thought this might be so.

Now here is the interesting conclusion to all this. . . that it is

actually better to give calves a milk replacement than to give them

pasteurized milk! Think of what this means about the degradation of

milk by pasteurization. Obviously the vitamins are denatured to such

an extent that there is no longer good nutrition for the animal, and

the synthetic vitamins in the milk replacement do a better job than

the vitamins in milk that has been pasteurized.

As for goats, I had an email conversation with a friend who is just

getting in to raising goats. She confirmed that goats are given a

combination of dried colostrum and a milk replacment to avoid passing

CAE (Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis) on to the kids. She sent me the

ingredients to this replacement which contains lots of minerals,

synthetic vitamins plus dried milk protein, dried milk, dried whey

and dried lactobacillus acidophilus " fermentation product. "

I suspect that the risk of passing CAE may be exaggerated in order

for the industry to sell lots of milk replacement, but even if this

is a true threat that must be countered with artificial feeding, the

conclusion is the same. A replacement containing vitamins and

minerals must be used because the pasteurized milk will not provide

all the kid needs to grow.

So the statement on the website is basically correct. We may post an

article on feeding ruminant animals containing this information at a

later date.

Sally

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

This topic has cooled lately but as Sally's comments may stir up some

more discussion, please have patience with the process of collecting

posts, forwarding them to her, and giving her time to respond if she

can.

One other thing - I'm sure Sally would agree that when the

Foundation's lab and research department are established, this is one

question that could and should be scientifically verified one way or

the other. It's kind of amazing how many basic things like this that

should not be difficult to ascertain one way or the other, which are

subject to so much uncertainty and controversy! Truly we need a

public interest scientific research facility/organization that can do

independent research on so many issues....

Cheers,