"From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST"

[Morbo]

I'll admit, it's been a while since I've bothered to read a small carton of milk, but what in the name of O'Leary is this all about? Displayed prominently on the side of my Berkeley Farms milk carton is the exact sentence from the title of the OP.

Google searching seems to reveal that this hormone was created to generate more milk production from dairy cows, but the search results are muddled with positive articles proclaiming the greatness of this hormone, and negative ones denouncing it. (And Google helpfully suggesting that I meant to search for "breasts").

Pardon my naivete, but wouldn't better milk production result in fewer dairy cows needed to create milk, which would be a benefit for dairies? Obviously Berkeley Farms doesn't think so. Is it that biotech in general is bad by default, so they want their consumers to know that the milk is all-natural? Or is this specific hormone bad for another more specific reason?

This is clearly a case for the SDMB - hopefully someone who knows all about this can enlighten me without me having to wade through all the charged opinions on the matter.

[GorillaMan]

A brief biased-but-reasonable explanation of the argument against growth hormones, and the ongoing rows and bans between the US and the EU, can be seen here (http://www.foei.org/trade/activistguide/hormone.htm). It also provides a few extra links. Basically, the concerns are about what the possible effects of them are on humans consuming the end product, and the inconclusiviness of present scientific opinion (something which often gives rise to endless garbage on the internet, as you've discovered)

[The Asbestos Mango]

Well, I've heard that rGBH can have negative health effects on humans, but there is a lot of controversy over this.

It's not good for the cows, though. Cows treated with the hormone have more udder infections, and some farmers have claimed that the cows have a shorter lifespan, which would negate the benefits of having a cow be more productive because more cows have to be bought or bred to replace the ones that die prematurely.

Personally, I've found that milk from non rGBH-treated cows just plain tastes better.

[Roches]

You might realize this, but a lot of people think that food that claims not to contain something claimed to be bad (a 'chemical' of some kind) tastes better. I've met people who claim to be able to taste the chemicals in non-organic food, and I think they really can, although I don't think they'd be able to differentiate between identical samples of organic and non-organic produce without being told which is which. With milk from hormone-treated cows vs. untreated cows, I suppose that it's possible that untreated cows could produce better-tasting milk because it has a higher protein or fat content, but it would not be the hormones themselves that make the difference.

As is the case with a lot of foods that brand themselves 'premium' (whether it's pure marketing or to justify a higher price), I suspect that this milk has always been from untreated cows. Now that it's become an issue to some, they've marked it as such to encourage sales to people who are concerned about hormones. It's kind of like all the foods which now have 'zero trans fat' labels -- they never did contain hydrogenated oils, and in some cases few or no similar foods do. (Some of them, like zero-trans-fat french fries, are high in saturated and other fats, but the marketing plays on people's ignorance: saturated fats are just as bad as trans fats.)

[The Asbestos Mango]

You might realize this, but a lot of people think that food that claims not to contain something claimed to be bad (a 'chemical' of some kind) tastes better. I've met people who claim to be able to taste the chemicals in non-organic food, and I think they really can, although I don't think they'd be able to differentiate between identical samples of organic and non-organic produce without being told which is which. With milk from hormone-treated cows vs. untreated cows, I suppose that it's possible that untreated cows could produce better-tasting milk because it has a higher protein or fat content, but it would not be the hormones themselves that make the difference.




Actually, on the whole, I think organic produce does, in fact taste better than non-organic, not because I can taste the chemicals, though. I think that organic produce, especially fruit, has more flavor than its non-organic counterparts. There are exceptions. Some brands, usually less-well-known brands of non-organic fruits, have a flavor that I would consider on a par with organically grown stuff.

The milk, same thing. I have found that your basic supermarket milk (which nearly always has at least a portion of the contents of the jug coming from rGBH treated cows) seems to be lacking in dairy goodness. Non-rGBH milk just has more depth of flavor, seems a bit sweeter, slightly funky (but not in a spoiled way).

I think that with the rGBH, the mammary glands are just making milk hellbent for leather, and some of the chemistry involved is perhaps a bit deficient.

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

The use of rBGH would most likely speed the demise of the small family farm. The hormones ARE expensive or at the very least, yet another expenditure in an already strained budget. (I've seen quotes of about $6/shot. Take that times 60 cows and then by 26 times a year, and you get about $9500. Who's going to spend that when you have to take out loans to plant crops to feed your cattle, nevermind the tractor you're still paying off?) Dairy farming is not a profitable business unless you're milking 200+ cows, and even then it's a tremendous gamble. Small farmers would not be able to keep up with the large producers if rBGH was suddenly seen in an overwhelmingly positive light.

According to eight studies by federal agencies and by university researchers, rBGH will tend to favor the survival of large farms in the sunbelt, and will tend to drive mid-sized farms out of business in the midwest and northeast.[4] A long and well-established body of literature has demonstrated that the presence of mid-sized farms is vital to the social and economic health of many rural communities. Thus yield-enhancing technologies, like rBGH, degrade rural community life, and drive less-successful farmers into cities where they may become part of the "urban problem." From "Making Milk: Basic Choices" (http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/milk_musings.html), the last article on this page.

The other articles have some pretty good info about health concerns for the treated cattle (increased amount of pus in the udder, increased mastitis, off-taste to the milk because of the pus, increased number of antibiotics to treat the infection). The use of rBGH would create a sort of medication circle-jerk -- rBGH causes more infections, so you use antibiotics to treat the infections, so that you have to throw out the antibiotic laced milk, so you have to produce more milk to stay competitive, so you get more cattle to produce more milk, which you treat with rBGH . . . that is, if you hadn't gone out of business at some point.

There's also the fact that cows who produce the amount of milk that rBGH would cause them to, would be leeching a crapload of calcium out of their bones, which would contribute to the shorter life spans. There's an anecdote (http://www.awionline.org/farm/rbgh.htm#econ) on this page, that seems to imply that rBGH might increase the number of twins born to treated cows, also damaging to calcium stores.

rBGH is not a solution to any problem. Especially non-existing ones. The US already produces a surplus of milk -- why more?

[GorillaMan]

I've met people who claim to be able to taste the chemicals in non-organic food, and I think they really can, although I don't think they'd be able to differentiate between identical samples of organic and non-organic produce without being told which is which.
OK, so we're getting off-topic, but there's a vast difference between organic and regular milk. (Agreed that there's other foodstuffs where there's no difference in tast, but then again that's not the only reason for choosing organic.)

[Colophon]

cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST
milk from non rGBH-treated cows
The use of rBGH would most likely speed the demise of the small family farm.

Can we find an acronym we like, and stick with it? Or is everyone talking about different things here?

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

rBST is just Monsanto's name from rBGH. I'm pretty sure that rGBH is just a typo, but rBST and rBGH are the same thing.

[deadeyesdad]

Speaking from personal experience. Dairyman who has/is using BST(Posilac is Monsanto's name for it and they ONLY refer to it as such). rBGH effects an increase in dry matter intake(DMI). The increase is what usually(not always because there are other factors involved) leads to an increase in milk production. BGH(no little r) is present in the younger animals in greater amounts than the older. It is a growth hormone. There will be an increase in mastitis(pus as some have called, infection that others called it) if you are poorly managing your farm. You will have mastitis with or without rBGH. It is one of the things we need to be aware of. I will tell you that even though we are milking about twice as many cows as we did when we started using rBGH we have less mastitis and therefore less antibiotic use now.

It is relativly expensive roughly $6.50 per dose. Given every 10-14 days depending on what you want to do. Add to that the increased DMI and we figure when it is all said and done we have between $9 and $10 invested in each treated animal. So if we get more than $10 worth of milk in the next 2 weeks we coming out ahead. Now since we(dairies who use rBGH) have been doing this for 10 years now the assumption should be made that we are. You need roughly 100 lbs of milk extra for it to pencil out black.

The plant that manufactures the shots for Monsanto is in Austria. They are currently experiencing some problems. Blah Blah Blah all the Monsanto people tell us. Monsanto is taking no new orders for Posilac. All their existing customers all being alotted roughly 40% of their previous(2003) orders. So there is a whole lot less cows being treated this year.

Some producer groups have made their members pledge to not use rBGH. The buyers at certain manufacturing plants will pay more for rBGH free milk. This is strictly an honor system thing as there is no way to test the milk in order to see if it comes from treated cows or not. That is very important. There is no way anyone can test the milk to be sure that it does not come from treated cows. I doubt any of you can taste the difference. The guys who do the day to day running of the co-op that we market our milk through are always telling us that it would be easier to marker our milk if we were to go no rBGH. When Posilac first became available we were strongly encouraged by our board(other dairy owner who ship to the same place) to not use it. Told to me with a straight face by two board members whom I had personally talked to about how well it(Posilac) was working out for them on their farms. So it will not be happeneing until the board memebers decide to stick to there own recomendations.

There should also be a sub-label to the no rBGH label that says something like "there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated animals"

Any questions class?

[GorillaMan]

There should also be a sub-label to the no rBGH label that says something like "there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated animals"
Surely you mean a label saying "no difference in taste"? Most of the concerns about rBGH have nothing to do with taste, and everything to do with the unknown aspects of longterm safety.

[deadeyesdad]

Surely you mean a label saying "no difference in taste"? Most of the concerns about rBGH have nothing to do with taste, and everything to do with the unknown aspects of longterm safety.

No I mean after the no rBST label there is a asterix * and somewhere on the container will be the disclaimer. with wording such as "federal tests prove that there is no difference between rBST milk and non rBST milk".

Berkeley Farms website (http://www.berkeleyfarms.com/get2.htm)


It should read something like is on that webpage.

Of course Berkekey Farms is really now just a name that Dean Foods uses to sell milk out here in California. Slimy soymilk selling Dean Foods that they are.

[deadeyesdad]

I was just reading what I had posted. Dry matter intake(DMI) is simply the fancy words we use for feed. It is what the cow eats, minus the liquid that is contained in the feed. DMI= amount of feed placed in the bunk(place where the feed is left for the cows to eat){F}-liquid in the feed{W}- feed that is left over at the end of the feeding period{L} or DMI=F-W-L Which is something I don't do everday but at least 1-2 per week. Remove water by the crude yet effective way of cooking feed in a microwave oven which smells to high hell and never should see human food cooked in it. The liquid is moostly water but in the case of some of the fermented feeds it does contain a bit of alcohol some which evaporated in the bunk and some which is ingested. See "great cheese comes from happy cows, happy cows come from California"

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

deadeyesdad, how many cows do you milk? What type of dairy cattle do you milk? What's your pasturage? What type of barn do you have? Parlor or traditional stanchion? How many times a day do you milk? What's your milking routine (ie: how do you wash, what do you use to wash, what kind of dip do you use)? Do you own a bull or do you rent? Do you keep a bull in with the milking herd or only with the dry cows/unbred heifers? Have you noticed a shortened life expectancy for your cows? How about the increased number of twins? Do you pasture the cows you're milking or only your dry cows? How do you dry off? Have you had to change the way you dry off since starting the rBGH?

When you say "100 lbs extra" do you mean per cow or for the herd total? Per cow, right? Because a hundredweight isn't all that much.

And, do you really believe that the cows in CA are happier than the cows in Wisconsin, which is the state the ads are clearly pointing to?

(Yeah, I know some of those questions are pretty unrelated. I'm just curious about dairy farming in CA as opposed to WI. And, of course, please disregard this if you think it'll highjack the thread overly.)

[Morbo]

Thanks everyone for your responses so far, especially deadeyesdad.

I'll be monitoring the continued discussion with great interest.

Miss Purl McKnittington - I recall reading that there were some local animal rights' groups that were protesting those commercials b/c they (of course) don't in any way depict the way normal dairy cows live in California. (Well, the Earthquakes part is probably true, but I doubt they consider it just a foot massage. ;))

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

Miss Purl McKnittington - I recall reading that there were some local animal rights' groups that were protesting those commercials b/c they (of course) don't in any way depict the way normal dairy cows live in California. (Well, the Earthquakes part is probably true, but I doubt they consider it just a foot massage. ;))

I hadn't heard that. The ad about dairy cattle being caught in the blizzard is the one that caught my attention, because cows in the Midwest definitely aren't kept like that in winter. Of course, animal rights' groups aren't going to be clearing that up.

[GorillaMan]

No I mean after the no rBST label there is a asterix * and somewhere on the container will be the disclaimer. with wording such as "federal tests prove that there is no difference between rBST milk and non rBST milk".

OK, 'Federal regulations identify no difference". Not "There is no difference". Because, apart from anything, there is a difference - otherwise there'd be nothing for us to talk about. And the EU consider the difference in potential risks to health to be quite severe - should the labelling deliberatly conceal such facts?

[Ghanima]

No cite, just a vague memory...
I heard that a large part of the controversy over these statements (something along the lines of "the FDA has found non-rBGH milk to be chemically identical, etc") is that when these studies were being conducted, the person in charge of appointing study directors for these studies had a personal interest in seeing this chemical pass the tests. When the results were not what was desired, the Study Director would get the boot and a new one appointed, until the desired "no difference" result was acheived. Apparently this took several "re-assignments" and the whole thing stank of bias.
I must admit I have no idea if this has any basis in reality. Just a rumor I heard. Anyone else heard this or have any cites?

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

No cite, just a vague memory...
I heard that a large part of the controversy over these statements (something along the lines of "the FDA has found non-rBGH milk to be chemically identical, etc") is that when these studies were being conducted, the person in charge of appointing study directors for these studies had a personal interest in seeing this chemical pass the tests. When the results were not what was desired, the Study Director would get the boot and a new one appointed, until the desired "no difference" result was acheived. Apparently this took several "re-assignments" and the whole thing stank of bias.
I must admit I have no idea if this has any basis in reality. Just a rumor I heard. Anyone else heard this or have any cites?

Does the first article on this (http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/milk_musings.html) page sound familiar or was what you heard even more nefarious? ;)

And I just dug this up on Monsanto's dairy site (http://www.monsantodairy.com): http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/animal_health/6_mastit.html

During the treatment period, SCC (somatic cell counts) were higher in some (but not all) groups or herds supplemented with POSILAC. Average SCC tended to increase in both the cows supplemented with POSILAC and control cows as lactation progressed (4). The range in SCC in eight herds averaged over the treatment period was 97,000-284,000 in the control cows and 178,000-264,000 in the supplemented group (4). The SCC levels for all cows were well within the normal ranges for high-quality milk. parenthetical mine

Somatic cell count = pus, basically. The cite for their numbers was "Technical Manual for POSILAC bovine somatotropin. Revised May 1994. Monsanto Company. pp. 6.1-6.7". So, the SCC counts are higher, but apparently not significantly so.

[deadeyesdad]

Miss Purl,

It is getting close to dinner time here and then there is homework(for the little ones). Tomorrow morning looks pretty full separating some new dry cows from the milking herd and then a business lunch. I hope to get anwers to your questions thought out and posted sometime tomorrow. The happy cows comment was a joke based on the fact I had just told everyone that our cows are consuming alcohol and therefore might be "happy" weak attempt at a joke on my part.

[deadeyesdad]

Homework was very light and I was able to take some notes as I was helping out. 2nd grade doesn't reqiure all that much thought for a 33 year old after all.

Numbers and type:

We are milking about 1549 Holsteins and one Jersey/Holstein cross+-10 head. All our hefiers from birth through 7 months bred(roughly 20-21 months) are kept at a separate facility and raised by a custom grower.

Pasturage:

All dry lot. Even the custom guys are all dry lot. A lot/all of the new construction locally and almost everywhere in Cali are free stall dairies. Local is Kern County California. Spring, summer and fall we rake the lots daily and in the summer we have a huge pile, changed weekly and raked daily, of dried manure under and 20 feet on each side of our 20 foot wide shades creating a 60 foot wide area of dry bedding for the cattle.

Parlor and milking:

Double 25 parallel parlor. Milking 3 times a day for all cows excepting those 21 days or less fresh who are being milked 6 times. We do not use our wash pen except during the wet months. Usually here; late November through late March early April. But we have had major dry spells in January/February where we have been able to have the lots dry enough for no washing milking. We have done this the last 3 years. Normal rainfall here is about 6 inches a year. So the cows walk directly into the parlor and are dipped with W-S Theratec then stripped. About a minute later the other guy comes by, wipes the teats with the paper towel and appies the unit. Automatic detatchers remove the claw at the end of milking and as soon as possible W-S Teat Kote 10/III is applied. When all 25 cows are finished milking they are let go back to the lots.

Breeding:

Our hefiers are bred AI 3 times and if not confirmed are sent to the bull. Our cows are bred AI starting 65 days post freshening. We usually keep them there either 3-4 breedings or until they are 200 days in milk. The confirmed pregnant ones are put in the preg pen and the ones that have not been confirmed are put in a bull pen. We use mostly young sires in the AI pens. We have a guy down the road who we buy our bulls(live, the frozen ones come from Select) from. He usually knows where they come from and they are usually ok. Major hedge there. We try to keep about 1 bull for every 20 cows in the bull pens. There are about 20 here now. We get them around 750 lbs and they leave at 1500-1600. Beef prices have made this a fun exercise the past year.

BST effects:

We have not seen an major increase in twins. Our pre Posilac dairy was in So Cal and was about 350 head. We were here and milking about 800 cows when Posilac became available. My father's records back in the '80s are hard to make a lot of sense from but it does not appear that there is anything wild happening in regards to twinning. We will probably have better data on that soon as the Posilac allotment(40% of last year) starts to have been in effect during the breeing period of soon to freshen cows. For my part if we can get rid of twinning I will dance all day long and late into the night. Our cull rates have varied wildly over the years. Low for many years before the move, huge after, lower as we were growing and had a good milk price behind us to about 30% now as we are currently in a stable mode. My oldest cow will be calving in the next week or so. She was born 2-27-91. We will probably nurse her though this calving and that will be it, we have her by herself and it doesn't look all that good. We play with her because of her good service and we really aren't the ruthless jerks everyone likes to make us out to be. 3-4 of those charity cases running around. But we haven't seen a big effect on cull rates because of rBST. My experience at least.

Dry period:

We used to dry off at 60 days before calving. Using Quartermaster(pennicillin) on every quarter and let them be; then put in the pre calving pen about 3 weeks before we expect them to give birth. We lately have been trying out shorter dry periods. We still dry off at 60 days pre for all low producers. The low producer number varies by milk price. 25lbs at $17 50lbs at $9. They get the whole antibiotic treatment. But if they still are producing we keep them milking until 20-30 days pre calving. No antibiotics at all just leave them off feed for 2 days and then get them into our pre calving group to get them spun up again for the next lactation. We have been doing that fo about 9 months now. We'll see how that works out this lactation. So far so good.

100 lbs:

That would be about 100 lbs per cow treated with the Posilac during the 2 week period. It works out milk-wise, if it goes right, to having 15 days of milk in that 14 day period with no extra cost than the feed and I can turn my feed into milk for profit at a very low milk price. It is the other thiings that make the money iffy at times.

Typos:

It has been a long day and I am ready to get out of here. Sorry for all the crappy typing and the disjointed thought.

[GorillaMan]

OK, I can only speak for myself here..

deadeyesdad - do you worry about suggestions that rBST has the potetial for human health problems, in the longer term? And two-pronged, if-not-why-not?, and if-so-why-do-it? Obviously I'm not expecting full arguments in response, any more than I've offered them at this point. But surely the whole use of such procedures such be regularly reviewed?

[CurtC]

Because, apart from anything, there is a difference - otherwise there'd be nothing for us to talk about.I guess I missed it, but what is the difference? There was that mastitis thing, but the cite posted by Miss Purl says that the SCC count of milk from rBGH treated cows is within the range measured from nontreated cows. Everything I've seen is that the two milks are indistinguishable, even to a science lab.

Are you talking about just the difference in how they're produced?do you worry about suggestions that rBST has the potetial for human health problems, in the longer term?Well, since BST is present in the milk of non-rBST cows, and rBST is indistinguishable from BST, then if anyone worries about rBST in milk, he should be worried about milk in general. Right?

[Miss Purl McKnittington]

Miss Purl,

It is getting close to dinner time here and then there is homework(for the little ones). Tomorrow morning looks pretty full separating some new dry cows from the milking herd and then a business lunch. I hope to get anwers to your questions thought out and posted sometime tomorrow. The happy cows comment was a joke based on the fact I had just told everyone that our cows are consuming alcohol and therefore might be "happy" weak attempt at a joke on my part.

Oh, no, I got the joke, and it was amusing. We feed our cows corn silage and hay silage in the winter -- hay silage only if a hay crop had been rained on a lot and was especially tough. It stinks to high heaven, but they love it beyond all reason. We also have a couple steers who devoured fermented wild grapes once and were pretty wobbly for a couple hours. After that, we added grape vines to the lists of things to machete in the spring.

I guess my question was a very not-pointed way to feel out how you feel about those ads. I felt very insulted after seeing them, as they implied that Midwestern dairy farmers mistreated their cattle and the cattle were unhappy. We have a small herd (about 65 being milked at any time, plus more dry and unbred heifers), and some of them are more like pets than "milking machines." There's just this sense of helpless frustration when accusations of mistreatment (however frivolous) are tossed out there.

Thank you very much for your thorough answers to all my questions. I'm sure I'll have more questions about your answers, but it's, um, 2:30 in the morning, and I'm at college. Whee! If anyone likes, I can give the small family farm answers, though they won't be anywhere near as detailed, since I'm at college, and always worked with the newborn calves, with a few ventures into dipping & washing.

Nevermind the typos. My dad's fallen asleep at the computer, at the dinner table, in the tub -- anywhere. It's hard explaining to people that even though my daddy is hardly ever more than two miles from home, I've gone weeks at a time without saying anything to him. Typos are nothing.

[Colophon]

No I mean after the no rBST label there is a asterix *

Those French comic book characters have a lot to answer for.

(asterisk is the word you are looking for)

[GorillaMan]

Are you talking about just the difference in how they're produced?
Yes. I'm talking about the right of consumers to be well-informed. If there's a different production method being used, it's inaccurate to tell them there's "no difference".

Well, since BST is present in the milk of non-rBST cows, and rBST is indistinguishable from BST, then if anyone worries about rBST in milk, he should be worried about milk in general. Right?
Untreated milk has been drunk for millennia. We know the risks. We don't know the long-term risks of the increased levels of growth hormone introdiced by rBST.

[CurtC]

I'm talking about the right of consumers to be well-informed. If there's a different production method being used, it's inaccurate to tell them there's "no difference".It's not inaccurate to tell them there's no difference in the final product. Further, there's no obligation on the part of a producer to tell someone how something is produced. You might want to know, and some producers would be willing to tell you, but you can't force a producer to tell you. It's like labels for GM food. There are lots of things that consumers might possibly want to know about their food - was it picked by union labor? What company supplied the seeds? What date was it picked on? But if we mandated labelling on every piece of information that some consumer somewhere wants to know, every piece of produce would have to be sold with a binder full of info. We only require labels when food safety is an issue.Untreated milk has been drunk for millennia. We know the risks. We don't know the long-term risks of the increased levels of growth hormone introdiced by rBST.First, I'm not sure that there are increased levels of BST. But even if it is higher, BST is digested, so does not enter the human's bloodstream as a hormone.