HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » That 'milk' line was real...

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:12 PM

That 'milk' line was real cute. Now, a few facts...

With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day — ten times more than they would produce naturally. As a result, the cows' bodies are under constant stress, and they are at risk for numerous health problems.

Approximately half of the country's dairy cows suffer from mastitis, a bacterial infection of their udders. This is such a common and costly ailment that a dairy industry group, the National Mastitis Council, was formed specifically to combat the disease. Other diseases, such as Bovine Leukemia Virus, Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, and Johne's disease (whose human counterpart is Crohn's disease) are also rampant on modern dairies, but they commonly go unnoticed because they are either difficult to detect or have a long incubation period. A cow eating a normal grass diet could not produce milk at the abnormal levels expected on modern dairies, and so today's dairy cows must be given high energy feeds. The unnaturally rich diet causes metabolic disorders including ketosis, which can be fatal, and laminitis, which causes lameness.

Another dairy industry disease caused by intensive milk production is "Milk Fever." This ailment is caused by calcium deficiency, and it occurs when milk secretion depletes calcium faster than it can be replenished in the blood.
...
Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a synthetic hormone, is now being injected into cows to get them to produce even more milk. Besides adversely affecting the cows' health, BGH also increases birth defects in their calves.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/dairy/


You don't think any of that gets passed on to the milk? Man, that would be hilarious if that were to spill and be unable to contain. Lets just hope they add some antibiotics:

Milk spills are another major environmental hazard for aquatic ecosystems. Milk is a highly polluting substance and when it gets into waterways is a threat to fish and other animals living within the waterway. This is because the bacteria feeds on the milk and uses up oxygen that fish and other animals need to survive. The dairy industry sometimes accidentally loses huge volumes of milk from its tankers. Sometimes milk that cannot be sold is deliberately dumped and gets into waterways.
...
Factory farmed animals are given antibiotics in their food to prevent infection in their overcrowded conditions. Animal waste contains substantial amounts of bacteria, and because only about a quarter of the antibiotic is digested by an animal, the waste may also contain antibiotics. This combination is a perfect opportunity for the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which may pass to humans when water or soil is contaminated with the bacteria from farm waste. Vegetables and fruit can also become contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria if animal waste that contains the bacteria is spread onto agricultural fields of fruit or vegetables.

http://www.informaction.org/cgi-bin/gPage.pl?menu=menua.txt&main=farmwaste_gen.txt&s=Farm


Who cares about water?! Ha ha, stupid fish! And fuck you, vegetables! We don't eat you, anyway!

Phytoplankton and algae thrive in the nutrient-rich water. Normally, blue-green algae are very important in the river ecosystem, photosynthesising sunlight energy, and liberating oxygen into the water. In large numbers, however, algae can become excessive, discolouring the water, giving an unpleasant smell and robbing the water of valuable oxygen as bacteria work overtime feeding on dead algae remains. Blue-green algae can also produce toxins, which kill wildlife, cause skin rashes, and cause pains and stomach upsets.

Eutrophication is thus depriving the river of oxygen (called "oxygen debt"). As algae dominate and turn the water green, the growth of other water plants is suppressed; these die first, disrupting the food chain. Death of invertebrates and fish follow on, and their dead remains in turn lead to excess bacterial activity during decomposition, reducing oxygen levels still further. Water with high BOD* figures are badly polluted, lower figures are better.

Consider the following BOD values of typical pollutants:
Silage liquor: up to 80,000 mg/litre
Vegetable washings 500-3000 mg/litre
Cattle slurry: up to 20,000 mg/litre
Liquid sewage sludge: 20,000 mg/litre
Pig slurry: up to 30,000 mg/litre
Domestic sewage: 300-400 mg/litre
Milk: 140,000 mg/litre
Treated sewage: 20-60 mg/litre

Milk is therefore one of the worst pollutants to that could enter the river system with a biological oxygen demand of 140,000 mg/litre.

*Biological Oxygen Demand. It is a measure of how quickly organic matter can de-oxygenate the water. Water with high BOD figures is thus badly polluted. Lower figures are better.

http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/rivers/gt%20stour%20case%20study-pages/plln-frm.html


But none of this ever happens, right?

Dairy fined after pollution kills fish in Devon stream

A Somerset dairy company was today ordered to pay more than £9,000 in fines and costs after milk waste escaped from a North Devon cheese factory and polluted a stream. The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

More than 70 fish including brown trout and bullhead died after waste from Higher Alminstone Farm, Woolsery entered a tributary of the Dipple Water. The farm is the main processing site for cheese manufacturer, Parkham Farms Limited.

The Agency visited the farm on June 29, 2008 after receiving a report of pollution in the Dipple Water. Arriving at Melbury Bridge the officer saw the stream had turned a milky colour. He made his way upstream to Higher Alminstone Farm where he found an underground storage tank overflowing with waste milk.

The officer returned the following day and found the stream below the discharge ditch was coated in a white powdery sediment. There was an odour of sour milk. Numerous colonies of blood worms, a sign of gross pollution, were present in the stream...



There may be a better way to deal with it than classifying it as 'oil' - maybe they can even do it at a lower cost - but to mock and marginalize concern for spillage is bullshit. So to is over-simplification and over-generalization of issues - but, hey, why not take another page out of the Republican playbook.

34 replies, 3767 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply That 'milk' line was real cute. Now, a few facts... (Original post)
drokhole Jan 2012 OP
nanabugg Jan 2012 #1
Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #2
drokhole Jan 2012 #4
XemaSab Jan 2012 #7
Honeycombe8 Jan 2012 #12
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #15
XemaSab Jan 2012 #17
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #20
YellowRubberDuckie Jan 2012 #29
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #33
tammywammy Jan 2012 #6
MadHound Jan 2012 #3
Norrin Radd Jan 2012 #5
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #8
drokhole Jan 2012 #10
Amonester Jan 2012 #14
drokhole Jan 2012 #19
Amonester Jan 2012 #21
drokhole Jan 2012 #22
mmonk Jan 2012 #9
csziggy Jan 2012 #11
drokhole Jan 2012 #13
mmonk Jan 2012 #16
xocet Jan 2012 #28
Turbineguy Jan 2012 #18
boppers Jan 2012 #23
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2012 #24
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #25
REP Jan 2012 #26
drokhole Jan 2012 #30
REP Jan 2012 #34
Ravens Light Jan 2012 #27
bvar22 Jan 2012 #31
sad sally Jan 2012 #32

Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:14 PM

1. Don't worry. Obama's got this! The reg will be changed but not eliminated. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:14 PM

2. I drink organic milk. It doesn't cost much more, and has no hormones, etc.

I would HOPE cows producing organic milk are treated better. I hope.

I've given up beef, pork, etc., but not dairy. I would consider it, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:24 PM

4. They certainly are.

Milk from grassfed/free-range cattle has some amazing health benefits: richer in vitamin content, higher in CLAs, naturally lower saturated fat, more antioxidants, a better ratio of omega 6-to-omega 3 fatty acids (among other things). It would seem that it would have the same BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) - but I believe those cows don't naturally produce that much milk in the first place (which is one of the reasons for the high vitamin content), so I'm not sure how much actually gets stored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:28 PM

7. Organic and free range aren't the same thing

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:38 PM

12. I'm going to check into this & buy free range if available, or see if org. is free range. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:50 PM

15. "Organic" means something. "Free Range" means nothing.

The only USDA regulation that applies to "Free Range" only concerns poultry and even then it means almost nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:00 AM

17. "Organic" means only that the animal was fed organic feed

Even though "free range" doesn't have a regulatory meaning, meat from here:



is better for everyone than meat from here:



(Full disclosure: I don't eat beef.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:15 AM

20. In terms of milk it means a bit more

It also means no hormones and certain types of medicines aren't used.

Most cattle in the US are raised in pastures like the first picture and then finished in feed lots like the 2nd picture. The problem with the term "Free Range" is that it can mean anything the producer wants it to mean and doesn't guarantee that the cows weren't fattened up in the very feed lot in your 2nd picture. Virtually any beef producer can put a sticker on their product that says "Free Range" and it would be both entirely accurate and grossly misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:28 PM

29. Organic isn't regulated either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:27 PM

6. I did a paper on rBST years ago for a class at school.

I've been drinking organic milk ever since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:15 PM

3. Yeah, I hear you

 

The rule was put in place for a reason, and many of us old folk out here in flyover country do know what can go wrong with a large milk spill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:25 PM

5. kr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:29 PM

8. Based on one milk spill incident?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:32 PM

10. That's just one example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:46 PM

14. Are there reliable statistics about how many others and how often?

Thanks for the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:14 AM

19. Not sure about where to find any aggregate info...

...couldn't find it on the EPA's website, and most of the web is flooded with the 'milk-as-oil' issue (though, apparently non-existent - as csziggy points out below), with some spills (including highway) peppered in. It would be nice to have that info front and center, but I don't know if it's info that's readily available to the public. I'm also curious how often it goes unreported - which, by its very nature, would be impossible to tell. It's just that, factory farms aren't known for their honesty when it comes to waste and spills. Even without one spill, the potential threats are very real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:35 AM

21. Thanks, and there's a good idea about how to put drones to 'useful' tasks...

instead of what they're used for these days...

But of course, if it's 'common sense' the obstructionist$ would obstruct that idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:39 AM

22. My thoughts exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:31 PM

9. Recommended. One of the things I heard and didn't ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:32 PM

11. The milk spill = oil spill regulation story is a myth anyway!

Posted elsewhere but re-posted here for visibility

March 12, 2011, 12:00 pm
Spilled Milk Regulations a Myth, E.P.A. Says
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
Green: Politics

To Representative Morgan Griffith, a freshman Republican from Virginia, nothing illustrates the Environmental Protection Agency’s overreach more clearly than a new rule applying the same regulations that govern spilled oil to milk spilled on dairy farms.

“It appears spilt milk is just as threatening as an oil spill,” Mr. Griffith wrote in a recent newsletter to his constituents.

<SNIP>

In testimony before Congress on Thursday, Ms. Jackson declared that the new rule cited by Republicans would, in fact, exempt dairy containers from the regulations that govern oil facilities — rules that have been on the books for nearly 40 years.

“It was our work with the dairy industry that prompted E.P.A. to develop an exemption and make sure the standards of the law are met in a common-sense way,” she said. “All of E.P.A.’s actions have been to exempt these containers. And we expect this to become final very shortly.”

More: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/spilled-milk-regulations-a-myth-e-p-a-says/


And it was rated False by PolitiFact:
Morgan Griffith says EPA treats milk spills same way as oil spills


Let’s review our findings.

Griffith claimed a "new ruling by the EPA would force dairy farmers to comply" with strict regulations for spills and leaks. He said the rules were the same as those enforced on oil and natural gas companies.

In fact, these regulations have been in place for 38 years and are not new at all. The "new ruling" from the EPA, announced in 2009 and taking effect in a few weeks, actually excludes milk from the spill standards, giving dairy farmers fewer regulations to meet. That’s the exact opposite of what Griffith claims.

Sure, Griffith got some of his information from an inaccurate editorial in The Wall Street Journal. But a congressman who is railing against a federal agency has the means to get his facts right.

Griffith is dishing udder cow chips. We rate his statement False.

More: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/mar/11/morgan-griffith/morgan-griffith-says-epa-treats-milk-spills-same-w/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:42 PM

13. Thanks!

I appreciate your addition. Makes it a bit more upsetting that Obama used it as a talking point. My point about marginalizing milk spillage remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:56 PM

16. Yep.

Sometimes, Republican talking points are used which annoys the shit out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:23 PM

28. Thanks for the information.

Pandering to Republicans is a terrible policy, since it forces one initially to accept the false claim that their claims have some basis in reality.

This approach would only make any sense if one were trying to use reductio ad absurdum in a logical argument, and that is clearly not the case in this situation - (Anyway, how often could one actually argue logically with a Republican politician? That is not their method, and their constituents do not seem to care often about actual fact or science for that matter.):

&feature=player_detailpage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:11 AM

18. Fascinating.

Nice to learn something new. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:40 AM

23. Science and rhetoric fail.

"over-simplification and over-generalization of issues" is, indeed, an issue, it seems.

As is science education.

But hey, 70 fish died! That's gotta mean something!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 01:42 AM

24. Excellent OP.

 

I bookmarked it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:01 AM

25. "would produce naturally"

Cows have been bred for thousands of years for certain traits. They are the embodiment of genetic engineering through human selection. (Even the dumbest herding tribe will eat the worst milk producers first.)

I don't know what is "natural" for an animal that did never and could never have existed absent human domestication, but it's pretty certain that the daily milk output was zero when a proto-cow was not nursing her own recently born calf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:14 AM

26. Johne's isn't bovine form of Crohn's

Johne's is bacterial and infectious. Crohn's is immune-mediated and non-infectious. For starters. There are other differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:47 PM

30. I don't think they were claiming that it was the 'bovine form'...

...just that it was a 'counterpart' - as in, 'resembles' (maybe for the purpose of reference)...


Can humans get Johne's disease?

The term “Johne’s disease” is used only to describe the clinical illness in ruminants that occurs after MAP infection.

There is a human ailment however called “Crohn's disease” that in several ways resembles Johne's disease. Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that has no known cause and no known cure. In some studies MAP has been found in tissues of Crohn’s disease patients more often than controls. Some researchers believe MAP is the cause of Crohn's disease for at least a subset of patients. The majority of gastroenterologists, however, do not; they believe that MAP, if found in this subset of patients, is simply a by-stander amongst the many other organisms that are found in a malfunctioning gastrointestinal tract. No connection has been shown between contact with animals with Johne's disease, dairy product consumption and Crohn's disease. This aspect of MAP is a complex and controversial area of scientific investigation.
A detailed discussion of this topic can be found in "Zoonotic Potential" on this website.

http://www.johnes.org/general/faqs.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 05:59 PM

34. From the excerpt in the OP:

"...Johne's disease (whose human counterpart is Crohn's disease)" made it sound as though they were equating the two, which, as I pointed out, is wrong. Not blaming you; just pointing out that information in the excerpt in the OP is factually inaccurate.

I am opposed to just about every facet of factory farming and avoid it as much as possible (I am lucky enough to live in an area that makes this easier). I fully support banning factory farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:15 AM

27. Welcome to the Jungle

 

This is why I only drink organic and open range milk. Don't want to drink something from an animal that's been caged in and in pain its whole life. You are what you eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drokhole (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 04:11 PM

31. Fuck Em!

They ARE a Profit Producing Commodity.
Pump em full of hormones, steroids, and anti-biotics,
attach them to machines on a conveyor belt in a factory,
and suck as much milk from them as mechanically possible
until they drop dead.
Then sell the carcass as "food".
THAT is the "Uniquely American Solution."


BTW: The same applies to YOU if you are a member of the American Working Class today.
We could change that if we had a political party that represented us.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their profit margin.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 04:22 PM

32. Keep 'em barely alive so they can be prodded to stand up - no matter how much pain

they're in as long as they're "disease free," they can be added to the food chain. The inhumanity inflicted onto non-humans - no words to describe how wrong it is - all in the name of money.

Supreme Court: Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts California's slaughter ban

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON _ The Supreme Court on Monday struck down California’s ban on the slaughter of downed swine, saying the state law strayed too far into federal territory.

In a case closely watched by other states as well as the multibillion-dollar livestock industry, the court unanimously ruled that longstanding federal law pre-empted California’s 2008 measure.

“The California law runs smack into the (federal) regulations,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. Kagan’s 14-page decision emphasized that the Federal Meat Inspection Act covers a “broad range of activities at slaughterhouses” and that it “expressly” pre-empts the state law.

The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/23/136642/supreme-court-federal-meat-inspection.html#storylink=omni_popular?du

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread