http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
Janet US

On Monday, December 9, 2013 3:49:58 PM UTC-7, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
> Janet US

Most milk IS ORGANIC AFAIK...its not sourced from artificial cows.

===

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
> Janet US

Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
the same benefit in the fat profile.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>> Janet US
>
>Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
>reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
>entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
>the same benefit in the fat profile.

Read this instead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
Janet US

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:50:44 AM UTC+10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:
> >Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
> >Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
> >reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
> >entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
> >the same benefit in the fat profile.
>
> > Read this instead.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
>
> Janet US

From the actual study, it's grass-feeding that matters:

"We conclude that increasing reliance on pasture and forage-based feeds on dairy farms has considerable potential to improve the FA profile of milk and dairy products. Although both conventional and organic dairies can benefit from grazing and forage-based feeds, it is far more common - and indeed mandatory on certified organic farms in the U.S. - for pasture and forage-based feeds to account for a significant share of a cow's daily DMI."

On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:19:47 -0800 (PST), Timo >
wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:50:44 AM UTC+10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:
>> >Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>>
>> >Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
>> >reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
>> >entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
>> >the same benefit in the fat profile.
>>
>> > Read this instead.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
>>
>> Janet US
>
>From the actual study, it's grass-feeding that matters:
>
>"We conclude that increasing reliance on pasture and forage-based feeds on dairy farms has considerable potential to improve the FA profile of milk and dairy products. Although both conventional and organic dairies can benefit from grazing and forage-based feeds, it is far more common - and indeed mandatory on certified organic farms in the U.S. - for pasture and forage-based feeds to account for a significant share of a cow's daily DMI."

What drugs are you on... there is no such thing as an organic pasture,
at least not on planet Earth... the ENTIRE planet, from pole to pole,
is polluted... there isn't an organic sq millimeter on this planet.

On Monday, December 9, 2013 6:02:15 PM UTC-5, Roy wrote:
> On Monday, December 9, 2013 3:49:58 PM UTC-7, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> > http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
> >
>
> > Janet US
>
>
>
> Most milk IS ORGANIC AFAIK...its not sourced from artificial cows.
>
>
>
> ===

the term 'organic' means that there is carbon in there.

On Monday, December 9, 2013 9:01:18 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:19:47 -0800 (PST), Timo >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:50:44 AM UTC+10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:
>
> >> >Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
> >>
>
> >> >Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
>
> >> >reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
>
> >> >entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
>
> >> >the same benefit in the fat profile.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Read this instead.
>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
>
> >>
>
> >> Janet US
>
> >
>
> >From the actual study, it's grass-feeding that matters:
>
> >
>
> >"We conclude that increasing reliance on pasture and forage-based feeds on dairy farms has considerable potential to improve the FA profile of milk and dairy products. Although both conventional and organic dairies can benefit from grazing and forage-based feeds, it is far more common - and indeed mandatory on certified organic farms in the U.S. - for pasture and forage-based feeds to account for a significant share of a cow's daily DMI."
>
>
>
> What drugs are you on... there is no such thing as an organic pasture,
>
> at least not on planet Earth... the ENTIRE planet, from pole to pole,
>
> is polluted... there isn't an organic sq millimeter on this planet.

Well there it is.

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
> >> Janet US
> >
> >Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
> >reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
> >entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
> >the same benefit in the fat profile.
>
> Read this instead.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
> Janet US

It says the same thing:

"Under government requirements for organic labeling, dairy cows must
spend a certain amount of the time in the pasture, eating grassy plants
high in omega-3s; conventional milk comes from cows that are mostly fed
corn, which is high in omega-6s. Nonorganic cows that graze in pastures
also produce milk with greater amounts of omega-3s."

Plus this little bit:

"The research was largely funded by Organic Valley, a farm cooperative
that sells organic dairy products."

Again, milk from grass fed non-organic cows will be the same.

Basically this is just one more study indicating that high corn
consumption is bad for you, even with an intermediary animal.

Corn on the cob = Good

Corn and corn by-products in every f'n food = Bad

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:01:18 PM UTC+10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:19:47 -0800 (PST), Timo wrote:
> >On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:50:44 AM UTC+10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
> >
> >From the actual study, it's grass-feeding that matters:
> >
> >"We conclude that increasing reliance on pasture and forage-based feeds on dairy farms has considerable potential to improve the FA profile of milk and dairy products. Although both conventional and organic dairies can benefit from grazing and forage-based feeds, it is far more common - and indeed mandatory on certified organic farms in the U.S. - for pasture and forage-based feeds to account for a significant share of a cow's daily DMI."
>
> What drugs are you on... there is no such thing as an organic pasture,
> at least not on planet Earth... the ENTIRE planet, from pole to pole,
> is polluted... there isn't an organic sq millimeter on this planet.

First, it's a quote. Why not email the authors of the paper and ask them what drugs they were on when they wrote the paper?

Second, learn English. "Organic" is not a synonym for "unpolluted". (Here, it is a legal definition. For livestock, the relevant part is access to pasture not treated with "non-organic" products within the last three years. Pollution is allowed.)

On Monday, December 9, 2013 4:49:58 PM UTC-6, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
High oleic sunflower oil has very little Omega-6, <4%. You don't need to get
Omega-3 from outrageously priced milk. Fish oil capsules have far more Omega-3
and are a lot cheaper.

Butterfat is also very low in Omega-6, ~4%, so in the grand scheme, the
Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio in milk is irrelevant.

So, I'll enjoy inexpensive whole milk from ALDI, and get my Omega-3 from fatty
fishes and fish oil capsules, while keeping my Omega-6 low by using low
polyunsaturate oil.

> Janet US

--Bryan sex+

On 12/9/2013 7:01 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:19:47 -0800 (PST), Timo >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:50:44 AM UTC+10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0500, "Pete C." wrote:
>>>> Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>>>
>>>> Other than the title, that's not really what the article states. The
>>>> reality is that "grass fed" is what is important, not "organic". It is
>>>> entirely possibly to have grass fed without being organic and still have
>>>> the same benefit in the fat profile.
>>>
>>>> Read this instead.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/he...inds.html?_r=0
>>>
>>> Janet US
>>
>>From the actual study, it's grass-feeding that matters:
>>
>> "We conclude that increasing reliance on pasture and forage-based feeds on dairy farms has considerable potential to improve the FA profile of milk and dairy products. Although both conventional and organic dairies can benefit from grazing and forage-based feeds, it is far more common - and indeed mandatory on certified organic farms in the U.S. - for pasture and forage-based feeds to account for a significant share of a cow's daily DMI."
>
> What drugs are you on... there is no such thing as an organic pasture,
> at least not on planet Earth... the ENTIRE planet, from pole to pole,
> is polluted... there isn't an organic sq millimeter on this planet.
>

One correction, for now.

There is some trapped and confined water beneath the poles, water in its
original state.

They're drilling it, so...

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>Janet US

I am neither for nor against organic (or any article I share here) I
simply thought the article had some things of interest to say. Bryan
was the only one that picked up on the actual nutritional aspect of
the forms of milk. All others seemed to have an immediate bias to
disprove the worth of the study and support their personal hobby
horse. I expected Sheldon to be the first in line.
Janet US

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
> >Janet US
>
> I am neither for nor against organic (or any article I share here) I
> simply thought the article had some things of interest to say. Bryan
> was the only one that picked up on the actual nutritional aspect of
> the forms of milk. All others seemed to have an immediate bias to
> disprove the worth of the study and support their personal hobby
> horse. I expected Sheldon to be the first in line.
> Janet US

We pointed out that the headline claim was an overreach from the results
of the study in question. The issue is grass fed vs. grain fed, not
organic vs. non organic. As I noted, a lot of research is pointing to
excess corn consumption not being good, and this study shows how it is
not good even with indirect consumption.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:19:45 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>> >Janet US
>>
>> I am neither for nor against organic (or any article I share here) I
>> simply thought the article had some things of interest to say. Bryan
>> was the only one that picked up on the actual nutritional aspect of
>> the forms of milk. All others seemed to have an immediate bias to
>> disprove the worth of the study and support their personal hobby
>> horse. I expected Sheldon to be the first in line.
>> Janet US
>
>We pointed out that the headline claim was an overreach from the results
>of the study in question. The issue is grass fed vs. grain fed, not
>organic vs. non organic. As I noted, a lot of research is pointing to
>excess corn consumption not being good, and this study shows how it is
>not good even with indirect consumption.

O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
diet. I guess I was disappointed that the responses seemed to
indicate a bias against studies, government studies, studies supported
by money from potential interested parties and a study that seems to
indicate one diet is better than another. To me, content or substance
is more important than pointing out editorial tinkering.
I probably should have prefaced the article, but it was easier to copy
and paste. Sorry
Janet US

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:48:40 -0500, Susan > wrote:
snip
>
>Every single effing report I've seen has misrepresented the real news as
>"organic vs regular milk."
>
>Susan

I think that is because that is the way it is interpreted by people
on the fringe or the people that are clueless. They've heard of
'organic' but that's about all they know.
Janet US

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:48:40 AM UTC+10, Susan wrote:
>
> Every single effing report I've seen has misrepresented the real news as
> "organic vs regular milk."

I wonder if it's because the funders wrote the press release, rather than the researchers.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:53:05 -0800, The Other Guy
> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:17 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
>
> >O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
> >was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
> >stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
> >diet.
>
> The problem is that not everyone has access to, OR can afford,
> grass-fed beef.
>
> AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
> be used when it's not really appropriate.
>
For me, organic milk from cows that have not been treated with growth
hormones or drugs in general (other than what is medically necessary),
pasture grazed as much as possible, given organic feed and humanely
treated.

I don't think that's too much to expect.

Beef steers are grass fed for most of their life and then plumped up
on feed lots. I wouldn't have a problem with feeding them corn or
other grains, if they could graze too. But their life on the feed lot
is abysmal.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:53:05 AM UTC+10, The Other Guy wrote:
>
> AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
> be used when it's not really appropriate.

When talking about certified organic farms, there is. The meaning can be different for different countries, different certifying bodies, etc., but the meanings are defined - and in writing, sometimes in quite long documents.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:58:47 -0800, The Other Guy
> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>
>A study at a university, done by a professor from
>The Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources
>at Washington State University
>
>
>Maybe just a LITTLE biased???
>
>
>And even THEN, it's more about what the cows are fed.
>Grass is better than the 'crap' that most factory farms
>feed their animals.

ALL pasture/farm land contains run off.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:47:29 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:49:58 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.nbcnews.com/health/yep-or...ilk-2D11712970
>>Janet US
>
>I am neither for nor against organic (or any article I share here) I
>simply thought the article had some things of interest to say. Bryan
>was the only one that picked up on the actual nutritional aspect of
>the forms of milk. All others seemed to have an immediate bias to
>disprove the worth of the study and support their personal hobby
>horse. I expected Sheldon to be the first in line.

First in line for what? I've made it very clear for a long time;
there is no such thing as organic food[period]

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:53:05 -0800, The Other Guy
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:17 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
> > >was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
> > >stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
> > >diet.
> >
> > The problem is that not everyone has access to, OR can afford,
> > grass-fed beef.
> >
> > AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
> > be used when it's not really appropriate.
> >
> For me, organic milk from cows that have not been treated with growth
> hormones or drugs in general (other than what is medically necessary),
> pasture grazed as much as possible, given organic feed and humanely
> treated.
>
> I don't think that's too much to expect.
>
> Beef steers are grass fed for most of their life and then plumped up
> on feed lots. I wouldn't have a problem with feeding them corn or
> other grains, if they could graze too. But their life on the feed lot
> is abysmal.

Cattle fed on corn/grain have essentially a constant upset stomach since
that is not what they evolved to eat. This condition also contributes to
the excess use of antibiotics to keep them from getting sick due to the
constant distress. The underlying truth to all of this is that all or
mostly corn/grain is not a good diet in general. I get grass fed beef
whenever possible, though it is more expensive, but not as much more
here in TX than it is in non cattle producing areas.

Susan wrote:
>

> But that doesn't change the
> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
> food supply,

I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
corn available for uses like ethanol.

On 12/10/2013 12:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:53:05 -0800, The Other Guy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:17 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
>>> was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
>>> stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
>>> diet.
>>
>> The problem is that not everyone has access to, OR can afford,
>> grass-fed beef.
>>
>> AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
>> be used when it's not really appropriate.
>>
> For me, organic milk from cows that have not been treated with growth
> hormones or drugs in general (other than what is medically necessary),
> pasture grazed as much as possible, given organic feed and humanely
> treated.
>
> I don't think that's too much to expect.
>
> Beef steers are grass fed for most of their life and then plumped up
> on feed lots. I wouldn't have a problem with feeding them corn or
> other grains, if they could graze too. But their life on the feed lot
> is abysmal.
>
Try completely inhumane.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:57:15 PM UTC-6, Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:53:05 -0800, The Other Guy
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:17 -0700, Janet Bostwick
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
>
> > > >was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
>
> > > >stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
>
> > > >diet.
>
> > >
>
> > > The problem is that not everyone has access to, OR can afford,
>
> > > grass-fed beef.
>
> > >
>
> > > AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
>
> > > be used when it's not really appropriate.
>
> > >
>
> > For me, organic milk from cows that have not been treated with growth
>
> > hormones or drugs in general (other than what is medically necessary),
>
> > pasture grazed as much as possible, given organic feed and humanely
>
> > treated.
>
> >
>
> > I don't think that's too much to expect.
>
> >
>
> > Beef steers are grass fed for most of their life and then plumped up
>
> > on feed lots. I wouldn't have a problem with feeding them corn or
>
> > other grains, if they could graze too. But their life on the feed lot
>
> > is abysmal.
>
>
>
> Cattle fed on corn/grain have essentially a constant upset stomach since
>
> that is not what they evolved to eat. This condition also contributes to
>
> the excess use of antibiotics to keep them from getting sick due to the
>
> constant distress. The underlying truth to all of this is that all or
>
> mostly corn/grain is not a good diet in general. I get grass fed beef
>
> whenever possible, though it is more expensive, but not as much more
>
> here in TX than it is in non cattle producing areas.

The ideal is to grass/hay feed until 2-3 weeks before slaughter, then
grain (corn) finish for improved flavor. More than a few weeks causes,
as you said, stomach problems (acidosis) that often require antibiotics.

--Bryan sex+

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Susan wrote:
> >
>
> > But that doesn't change the
> > fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
> > food supply,
>
> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
> corn available for uses like ethanol.

I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/10/2013 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Susan wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> But that doesn't change the
>>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>>> food supply,
>>
>> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>
> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>
Ditto that, a waste of good corn and water intensive as well.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:53:05 -0800, The Other Guy
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:17 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>
>>O.k., I was lazy and copied the headline to make a subject line. It
>>was obviously a reporter's attempt at getting attention. The real
>>stuff in the article for me was the increased nutrition from a natural
>>diet.
>
>The problem is that not everyone has access to, OR can afford,
>grass-fed beef.
>
>AND there is no defined meaning of 'organic', so the term can
>be used when it's not really appropriate.

"Organic" is used to charge double to those with more dollars than
brain cells.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Susan wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > But that doesn't change the
> > > fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
> > > food supply,
> >
> > I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
> > reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
> > as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
> > corn available for uses like ethanol.
>
> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.

Once you reduce the huge amount of corn and corn by-products going into
the food chain, all those corn farmers need somewhere to sell the corn.

"Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2013 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Susan wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> But that doesn't change the
> >>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
> >>> food supply,
> >>
> >> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
> >> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
> >> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
> >> corn available for uses like ethanol.
> >
> > I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
> >
> Ditto that, a waste of good corn and water intensive as well.

The point is that corn really isn't that good, so we should be getting
it out of much of our foods.

On 12/10/2013 3:53 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Susan wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> But that doesn't change the
>>>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>>>> food supply,
>>>
>>> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>>> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>>> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>>> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>>
>> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>
> Once you reduce the huge amount of corn and corn by-products going into
> the food chain, all those corn farmers need somewhere to sell the corn.
>
Mejico?

China?

On 12/10/2013 3:54 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "Pearl F. Buck" wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2013 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't change the
>>>>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>>>>> food supply,
>>>>
>>>> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>>>> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>>>> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>>>> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>>>
>>> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>>>
>> Ditto that, a waste of good corn and water intensive as well.
>
> The point is that corn really isn't that good, so we should be getting
> it out of much of our foods.

That depends.

I prefer choice, but corn by-products are something we have no choice in
any more.

In Mejico, however, it is a staple, and there are complaints that
ethanol use spiked their tortilla prices.

Whether that is really true, well?

http://www.actionaidusa.org/press/us...r-fuels-hunger

The report finds that rising corn ethanol production in the United
States, fueled by a deadly cocktail of subsidies, mandates, and rising
oil prices, has increased Mexico’s food import bill. As a result, prices
for staple foods like corn tortillas are increasing, accelerating hunger.

Key findings include:

• The rising price of US corn (fueled by diversion of corn corps for
ethanol) combined with the increase in Mexico’s corn imports, has
directly impacted Mexican consumers. Between 2005 and 2011, tortilla
prices increased by 69 percent, and the cost of the basic food basket
that a Mexican family more than doubled. In 2011, 56% of Mexicans
suffered some period of food insecurity, and five million children
suffered from hunger.

• Since 2005, US ethanol expansion cost Mexico between $1.5-$3.2 billion
in higher corn prices- or on average between $250-$500 million per year.
This represents 10-20 times the amount that Mexico spends annually on
its support program for small maize and wheat farmers.

• That same $250 million could be redirected to help farmers in Mexico
to produce an additional to 700,000 metric tons of corn. These yields
would cut the country's corn trade deficit by 10% in just one year.

• Corn ethanol trends are expected to push corn prices 12% higher in
2017, and this will result in an increase in meat and dairy rates.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:11:47 PM UTC-6, Pearl F. Buck wrote:
> On 12/10/2013 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> Susan wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> But that doesn't change the
>
> >>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>
> >>> food supply,
>
> >>
>
> >> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>
> >> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>
> >> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>
> >> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>
> >
>
> > I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>
> >
>
> Ditto that, a waste of good corn and water intensive as well.

A waste of good ethanol if it isn't ending up in human blood.

--Bryan sex+

On 12/10/2013 4:52 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:11:47 PM UTC-6, Pearl F. Buck wrote:
>> On 12/10/2013 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Susan wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> But that doesn't change the
>>
>>>>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>>
>>>>> food supply,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>>
>>>> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>>
>>>> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>>
>>>> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>>
>>>
>>
>> Ditto that, a waste of good corn and water intensive as well.
>
> A waste of good ethanol if it isn't ending up in human blood.
>
> --Bryan sex+
>
Marty's got your moonshine jug ready...

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:53:36 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Susan wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > But that doesn't change the
> > > > fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
> > > > food supply,
> > >
> > > I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
> > > reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
> > > as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
> > > corn available for uses like ethanol.
> >
> > I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>
> Once you reduce the huge amount of corn and corn by-products going into
> the food chain, all those corn farmers need somewhere to sell the corn.

They've never heard about crop rotation????

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/10/2013 7:56 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:53:36 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:00:23 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Susan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't change the
>>>>> fact that this information should drive changes in how we manage our
>>>>> food supply,
>>>>
>>>> I think it provides yet another study pointing out that we need to
>>>> reduce the corn and corn by-products both directly in our food as well
>>>> as in the feed for our food animals. On the plus side that means more
>>>> corn available for uses like ethanol.
>>>
>>> I'd like do eliminate ethanol too.
>>
>> Once you reduce the huge amount of corn and corn by-products going into
>> the food chain, all those corn farmers need somewhere to sell the corn.
>
> They've never heard about crop rotation????
>

Soybeans are big in China's want list now...

"Susan" > wrote in message
...

> Corn finished beef tastes different, but better is a matter of personal
> taste, and it's not my preference.

Please would you explain that?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Susan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Corn finished beef tastes different, but better is a matter of personal
> > taste, and it's not my preference.
>
> Please would you explain that?

There is definitely a difference in taste between corn and grass fed
beef. Even a visual difference as grass fed has very white fat while
corn fed is more of an ivory color. I don't think either tastes bad,
however I do feel grass fed tastes better, and when serving grass fed
beef to guests it always gets positive comments and questions.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Susan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Corn finished beef tastes different, but better is a matter of personal
>> > taste, and it's not my preference.
>>
>> Please would you explain that?
>
> There is definitely a difference in taste between corn and grass fed
> beef. Even a visual difference as grass fed has very white fat while
> corn fed is more of an ivory color. I don't think either tastes bad,
> however I do feel grass fed tastes better, and when serving grass fed
> beef to guests it always gets positive comments and questions.

Thanks.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:28:51 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > "Susan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Corn finished beef tastes different, but better is a matter of personal
> > > taste, and it's not my preference.
> >
> > Please would you explain that?
>
> There is definitely a difference in taste between corn and grass fed
> beef. Even a visual difference as grass fed has very white fat while
> corn fed is more of an ivory color. I don't think either tastes bad,
> however I do feel grass fed tastes better, and when serving grass fed
> beef to guests it always gets positive comments and questions.

I remember when corn fed beef was introduced and it was what everyone
liked to say they preferred - if they could get it. It was quite
hoity toidy back then and all the "best" steak houses touted it like
they do with grass fed now.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.