Re: skimming the fat in chicken stock - why?

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

>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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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?

-