Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 - >The tape Sally made for the conference in DC for 2004 said to skim off >the stuff that floated to the top - that it was really nasty. But I >never can see anything to skim so I never have and have probably >poisoned myself. The foam that floats to the top early on is largely formed from blood, and though some say that it contains undesirable impurities, pollutants, contaminants, what-have-you, the most obvious reason to skim it off is that the stock tastes much better if you do. If left in, the foam tends to impart a bitter, nasty flavor. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 >On 1/30/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote: > >> Ahem, after I badgered Sally (with help from I think?) about the >> inaccuracy of the " calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity " >> statement in the WAPF literature, Sally agreed to change it. > >I don't think I was a primary agitator in this, but I think everyone >is totally exaggerating WAPF's fault in this. The point is that when >calf's are fed ONLY pasteurize milk, they die. The profound value of >this observation is not contradicted by the fact that pasteurized milk >produces calves quite fine if their diets are supplemented. Or do I >still have the facts wrong? You have the facts wrong :-) First, the statement is based on a study involving *8* calves only that were fed pasteurized milk (exclusively, IIRC), and only some of them died before the study ended while others did not. So even if they had all died during the study, this still wouldn't mean a definitive statement could be made that ALL calves fed pasteurized milk during maturity, which the former WAPF statement implies. Second, most commercially raised calves and kids are fed pasteurized milk and live to adulthood. Assumedly though, they are supplemented. But then no human being lives on pasteurized milk alone, their diet is supplemented with other foods, so the fact that SOME calves fed exclusively pasteurized milk and no other foods die during a certain time frame has little relevance for all intents and purposes to the average human. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Suze, > You have the facts wrong :-) First, the statement is based on a study > involving *8* calves only that were fed pasteurized milk (exclusively, > IIRC), I didn't realize there was no raw milk control, in which case the study doesn't say much at all. > and only some of them died before the study ended while others did > not. I didn't realize that either. > So even if they had all died during the study, this still wouldn't mean > a definitive statement could be made that ALL calves fed pasteurized milk > during maturity, which the former WAPF statement implies. Second, most > commercially raised calves and kids are fed pasteurized milk and live to > adulthood. Assumedly though, they are supplemented. But then no human being > lives on pasteurized milk alone, their diet is supplemented with other > foods, so the fact that SOME calves fed exclusively pasteurized milk and no > other foods die during a certain time frame has little relevance for all > intents and purposes to the average human. I disagree. I think that's silly for basically the reason you actually state: it's self-evident that human children fed some pasteurized milk will not die from it, so no one would take the statement to suggest that you can die from drinking milk. If there were such an observation that calves fed pasteurized milk died before maturity while those drinking raw milk did not, that would have HUGE relevance to humans who only use it as part of their diet: it would have demonstrated that there is something essential to life that is present in raw milk and not present in pasteurized milk. I didn't realize, however, to add to the list, that the wording was formulated in such a way as to suggest that the milk was an active poison rather than nutritionally compromised. That is a major difference. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Suze- >First, the statement is based on a study >involving *8* calves only that were fed pasteurized milk (exclusively, >IIRC), and only some of them died before the study ended while others did >not. Oh! That puts a very different complexion on it. I didn't realize that any of the calves survived. That makes the original statement a heck of a lot worse. >Second, most >commercially raised calves and kids are fed pasteurized milk and live to >adulthood. Assumedly though, they are supplemented. No question about it: they're all supplemented. >But then no human being >lives on pasteurized milk alone, their diet is supplemented with other >foods, so the fact that SOME calves fed exclusively pasteurized milk and no >other foods die during a certain time frame has little relevance for all >intents and purposes to the average human. It's not at all irrelevant, because it demonstrates clearly that pasteurization damages the nutrient value of milk. Yes, it would be a lot better if the study had been much larger and controlled (was it controlled?) but it's not unreasonable to refer to it as a demonstration of the reduced value of pasteurized milk. That said, even if all the calves had died, the original statement as formulated was grossly misleading and arguably fundamentally inaccurate, and I'm very glad it's been changed. Do you know offhand what the new wording is? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.