I have been reading Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma. If you haven't read it he investigates conventional vs grass fed farming practices. He talks about feeding corn to cows and how they aren't adapted to eat it. He stated they actually get sick from eating corn, but are slaughtered before they get too sick. This book got me really thinking about the effects of so much overuse of corn in our food supply. As many of you know, my son is highly corn sensitive and eating a corn free diet is nearly impossible these days. I also see many corn sensitive people who get MRT, probably about as many as I see with gluten sensitivity, so that's a fair percentage.
I know that corn does not show up in the meat that we eat and that people with corn sensitivity don't react to eating corn-fed meat products. But here is my question: does the corn show up in the cow's milk? In humans we know that what the mom eats affects the breastfed baby, so is this possible with cow's too? I ask because if that is true, then it makes more sense why we are seeing so many people (especially kids who are big milk drinkers like my son was) with corn sensitivity. Organic milk, as Pollan points out, is very popular right now, but organic can still mean corn-fed. If corn is getting into the cow's milk then one would need to drink milk from pasture fed cows to avoid getting corn overload from dairy products.
Tex, just wondering what your thoughts are about this.
Mary Beth
Corn question for Tex and others
Moderators: Rosie, JFR, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh, mbeezie
Corn question for Tex and others
"If you believe it will work out, you'll see opportunities. If you believe it won't you will see obstacles." - Dr. Wayne Dyer
very interesting question Mary Beth. To add something to it, since it matters what the mother eats, when she breastfeeds the baby, how about gluten? Normally gluten-intolerance in a baby becomes visible after he/she starts to eat gluten containing food (as far as I know). Does it make any difference that while breastfeeding the mother is eating gluten?
"As the sense of identity shifts from the imaginary person to your real being as presence awareness, the life of suffering dissolves like mist before the rising sun"
Good topic, Mary Beth.
Of course, I have a corn sensitivity, so I am interested in Tex' response, too. I have this gut feeling that something is really wrong with our food supply. That's why, increasingly, I am choosing to eat organic, locally-grown, free range foods.
Love,
Polly
Of course, I have a corn sensitivity, so I am interested in Tex' response, too. I have this gut feeling that something is really wrong with our food supply. That's why, increasingly, I am choosing to eat organic, locally-grown, free range foods.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Mary Beth, and everyone interested in this topic,
We do know that certain components in corn can be transmitted through cow's milk. Mycotoxins, for example, (especially aflatoxin), seem to be quite prevalent in milk. IOW, if a cow eats corn that contains more than 20 parts per billion, (ppb), of aflatoxin, (which is the legal limit for aflatoxin content), then the milk from that cow tends to carry it at approximately the same concentration level. That's pretty profound, IMO.
Not being a chemist, I have no concept of how the molecular structure of the various known mycotoxins might compare with the molecular structure of any of the peptides that cause problems for those of us with food sensitivities, but I would hazard a guess that due to the unique potential of milk to carry so many varied chemical elements, (hormones, nutrients, antibodies, etc.), specifically targeted toward enhancing and promoting the rapid growth and overall development of infants, milk probably has relatively limited barriers to many chemical compounds. I'm not saying that this is what happens, but I wonder if it might be possible, for example, that the aflatoxin found in milk, may be "piggy-backing" it's way in, attached to corn gluten peptides.
After all that's where the aflatoxin is originally located.
One of the big problems with the mycotoxins is their persistence - they are extremely difficult to destroy. Many people believe that corn that contains a high aflatoxin content can be safely used to produce ethanol, for example. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because of the fact that something must be done to dispose of the leftover stillage, (the grain residue), or it will stack up and become a very smelly, hazardous waste problem. Normally, it's used to make corn gluten, (which has a very high protein content), and utilized as cattle feed. If aflatoxin is present, though, it is not only preserved, but concentrated, (just as the protein content is concentrated), so corn that contains significant amounts of aflatoxin is not only unsafe to eat or feed to livestock, but it's also unsafe to use for making ethanol. Attempts have been made to find ways to destroy the aflatoxin in corn gluten, but as you can see from the example below, using acid hydrolysis, similar to wheat gluten, aflatoxin is very difficult to deactivate.
AFB(1) stands for the beta fraction of aflatoxin, which is the most prevalent component of aflatoxin. (There are also alpha, gamma, and delta fractions, that are normally tested for, and monitored). The amount of aflatoxin reported is usually the sum of the test results for these four fractions. As you can see, the process mentioned above, requires a high concentration of hydrochloric acid, at 110 °C, (which is equivalent to 230 °F), in order to do the job. If that's what it takes to break down the aflatoxin beta fraction, the chances are pretty good that the corn gluten peptides that the aflatoxin may be hitchhiking on, are not going to be broken down to the amino acid level, (which would be the safe level), inside the cow's body, so there is probably nothing to prevent it from being transferred to the milk, especially if that cow happens to have a MAP infection, (which would tend to cause the leaky gut syndrome).
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is that since aflatoxin always goes straight into the cow's milk, it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that at least some of the peptides of corn gluten, probably end up in the milk, also. That's strictly a WAEG, though, at this point.
Incidentally, I'm mystified by this claim:
Cattle are much more likely to get sick on green pastures, (such as wheat pastures), than they are eating corn rations. Bloat is a major problem on grass pastures, (grass tetany, magnesium deficiency, etc.). Cattle have four stomachs, so they are indeed adapted to digest corn. In fact, once they get up to at least around 600 lbs weight, they can digest whole corn kernels, (IOW, they can dissolve the pericarp that surrounds the seed, to get at the starch inside). Prior to that approximate weight, the kernels must be ground, or at least cracked, in order for them to be able to fully utilize it. IOW, the ability to digest corn develops as the animal matures.
Technically, of course, he's right, since the wild ancestors of domestic cattle did not evolve eating corn. If you believe that only paleo foods are safe for humans, then you are certainly likely to believe that only ancient grasses and forbs are safe for cattle. For the rest of us, though at least some of the neolithic foods seem to be acceptable, and that pretty much applies to domestic cattle as well. After all, domestic cattle are a development of the neolithic age, so they have evolved with neolithic feed ingredients. Even with mature cattle, though, a few kernels of corn will pass through undigested, presumably because of extra-thick pericarp layers, or just plain luck. Pollan may use such issues, combined with half-truths, to manipulate the facts around that issue, in order to promote his agenda. Cattle aren't slaughtered because they are likely to get sick if they continue to eat corn - they're slaughtered because they will get too fat if they continue to eat it, and they will lose their "prime" grade.
Incidentally, one of the biggest problems with organic products, is that most of them really aren't. The standards are somewhat of a joke. Grass fed cows only have to be grass fed for a few weeks of the year. Free roaming chickens only have to be free roaming part of the time. Many organic inputs are not actually organic. For example, anyone living in the western part of this country, who thought that they were eating organic products for the past few years, were probably mistaken:
Tex
The short answer is, "I don't know, and I'm pretty sure that no one does". The long answer is:Mary Beth wrote:does the corn show up in the cow's milk?
We do know that certain components in corn can be transmitted through cow's milk. Mycotoxins, for example, (especially aflatoxin), seem to be quite prevalent in milk. IOW, if a cow eats corn that contains more than 20 parts per billion, (ppb), of aflatoxin, (which is the legal limit for aflatoxin content), then the milk from that cow tends to carry it at approximately the same concentration level. That's pretty profound, IMO.
Not being a chemist, I have no concept of how the molecular structure of the various known mycotoxins might compare with the molecular structure of any of the peptides that cause problems for those of us with food sensitivities, but I would hazard a guess that due to the unique potential of milk to carry so many varied chemical elements, (hormones, nutrients, antibodies, etc.), specifically targeted toward enhancing and promoting the rapid growth and overall development of infants, milk probably has relatively limited barriers to many chemical compounds. I'm not saying that this is what happens, but I wonder if it might be possible, for example, that the aflatoxin found in milk, may be "piggy-backing" it's way in, attached to corn gluten peptides.
After all that's where the aflatoxin is originally located.One of the big problems with the mycotoxins is their persistence - they are extremely difficult to destroy. Many people believe that corn that contains a high aflatoxin content can be safely used to produce ethanol, for example. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because of the fact that something must be done to dispose of the leftover stillage, (the grain residue), or it will stack up and become a very smelly, hazardous waste problem. Normally, it's used to make corn gluten, (which has a very high protein content), and utilized as cattle feed. If aflatoxin is present, though, it is not only preserved, but concentrated, (just as the protein content is concentrated), so corn that contains significant amounts of aflatoxin is not only unsafe to eat or feed to livestock, but it's also unsafe to use for making ethanol. Attempts have been made to find ways to destroy the aflatoxin in corn gluten, but as you can see from the example below, using acid hydrolysis, similar to wheat gluten, aflatoxin is very difficult to deactivate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21218474during the wet milling process the highest AFB(1) level (45.68 µg kg(-1) ) (37.86%) was found in corn gluten fraction. Treatment with 1 mol L(-1) HCL at 110 °C resulted in degradation of AFB(1) by 27.6% (33.07 µg kg(-1) ) after 4 h and reached 42.5% (26.26 µg kg(-1) ) after 8 h. Increasing HCl concentration from 1 to 3 mol L(-1) HCl resulted in increased degradation of AFB(1) , while complete degradation occurred in the presence of 5 mol L(-1) HCl after 4 h at 110 °C. Meanwhile, half-life time of AFB(1) was recorded after 2 h at 100 °C and was < 2 h at 110 °C in the presence of 3 mol L(-1) HCl.
AFB(1) stands for the beta fraction of aflatoxin, which is the most prevalent component of aflatoxin. (There are also alpha, gamma, and delta fractions, that are normally tested for, and monitored). The amount of aflatoxin reported is usually the sum of the test results for these four fractions. As you can see, the process mentioned above, requires a high concentration of hydrochloric acid, at 110 °C, (which is equivalent to 230 °F), in order to do the job. If that's what it takes to break down the aflatoxin beta fraction, the chances are pretty good that the corn gluten peptides that the aflatoxin may be hitchhiking on, are not going to be broken down to the amino acid level, (which would be the safe level), inside the cow's body, so there is probably nothing to prevent it from being transferred to the milk, especially if that cow happens to have a MAP infection, (which would tend to cause the leaky gut syndrome).
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is that since aflatoxin always goes straight into the cow's milk, it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that at least some of the peptides of corn gluten, probably end up in the milk, also. That's strictly a WAEG, though, at this point.
Incidentally, I'm mystified by this claim:
I've fed a lot of cattle in the past, on a mostly corn ration, (with the addition of protein, and fiber, and trace minerals and vitamins), and the only times that I have ever seen a few of them get sick, is when it rained, and the water blew into the feed in the trough, and the corn, together with the protein supplement in the ration, (usually soy-based), started to ferment, (spoil), before they ate it. Otherwise, they get/stay healthy/happy/fat, with no significant issues.He talks about feeding corn to cows and how they aren't adapted to eat it. He stated they actually get sick from eating corn, but are slaughtered before they get too sick.
Cattle are much more likely to get sick on green pastures, (such as wheat pastures), than they are eating corn rations. Bloat is a major problem on grass pastures, (grass tetany, magnesium deficiency, etc.). Cattle have four stomachs, so they are indeed adapted to digest corn. In fact, once they get up to at least around 600 lbs weight, they can digest whole corn kernels, (IOW, they can dissolve the pericarp that surrounds the seed, to get at the starch inside). Prior to that approximate weight, the kernels must be ground, or at least cracked, in order for them to be able to fully utilize it. IOW, the ability to digest corn develops as the animal matures.
Technically, of course, he's right, since the wild ancestors of domestic cattle did not evolve eating corn. If you believe that only paleo foods are safe for humans, then you are certainly likely to believe that only ancient grasses and forbs are safe for cattle. For the rest of us, though at least some of the neolithic foods seem to be acceptable, and that pretty much applies to domestic cattle as well. After all, domestic cattle are a development of the neolithic age, so they have evolved with neolithic feed ingredients. Even with mature cattle, though, a few kernels of corn will pass through undigested, presumably because of extra-thick pericarp layers, or just plain luck. Pollan may use such issues, combined with half-truths, to manipulate the facts around that issue, in order to promote his agenda. Cattle aren't slaughtered because they are likely to get sick if they continue to eat corn - they're slaughtered because they will get too fat if they continue to eat it, and they will lose their "prime" grade.
Incidentally, one of the biggest problems with organic products, is that most of them really aren't. The standards are somewhat of a joke. Grass fed cows only have to be grass fed for a few weeks of the year. Free roaming chickens only have to be free roaming part of the time. Many organic inputs are not actually organic. For example, anyone living in the western part of this country, who thought that they were eating organic products for the past few years, were probably mistaken:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-o ... 9938.storyOn Thursday a federal grand jury indicted Nelson on 28 counts of mail fraud in connection with an alleged years-long scheme to dupe farmers and agriculture product distributors. The indictment accused Nelson, 57, of selling premium-priced liquid fertilizer touted as made from all-natural products such as fish meal and bird guano that instead was spiked with far cheaper synthetic chemicals.
The scheme, according to the federal indictment, enabled Nelson to become the largest purveyor of organic fertilizer to farmers in the western half of the U.S. and pull in at least $9 million in sales from 2003 to 2009.
This is the second indictment of an organic fertilizer producer in California in the last five months. It also has fueled fears among some farmers about possible contamination of their pristine fields and has raised questions about whether consumers bought produce that was billed as organic but may not have met federal organic requirements. Many consumers who opt to pay a premium for organic goods do so because they don't want pesticides and synthetic chemicals to be used in the production of their food.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks for your response. Pollan interviewed a vet who believes that feedlot animals are sickened by their diets. He says " they are made to eat forage and we are making them eat grain". The vet said cattle will adjust to a corn diet becasue they are being selected and bred for their ability to do so. He did cite bloat as a problem for corn fed cattle, as well as acidosis. The vet said that cows get nice and fat on the corn, but he beleives they would "blow out their livers - over time the acids eat away at the rumen wall, allowing bacteria to enter the animal's bloodstream. These microbes wind up in the liver, where they form abscesses and impair the liver's function. Between 15-30% of feedlot cows are found at slughter to have abscesed livers". He goes on to talk about the drugs used to buffer the acid and antibiotics to prevent infection.
Pollan discusses all of the problems with organics as well. He likens big organic to commercial farming - more similar than dissimilar, just as Whole Foods is more similar to WalMart than one would like to think. Hence the dilemma - all of our options have potential problems associated with them. The answers are not simple, as our food supply is tied up in the political system more than people would like to admit.
I think one has to do alot of soul searching and thinking about their diet choices. We put more thought into trivial things than we do what we put in our bodies. His book is thought provoking. I agree with Polly that our food supply is a big problem. I am not defending or disputing anything Pollan says - it goes deeper than that for me. At the end of the day I want to feel good about what I eat for my own health, but also the ripple affect of that choice on so many variables. I ask many more questions than I used to about where my food came from and how it was produced.
Mary Beth
Pollan discusses all of the problems with organics as well. He likens big organic to commercial farming - more similar than dissimilar, just as Whole Foods is more similar to WalMart than one would like to think. Hence the dilemma - all of our options have potential problems associated with them. The answers are not simple, as our food supply is tied up in the political system more than people would like to admit.
I think one has to do alot of soul searching and thinking about their diet choices. We put more thought into trivial things than we do what we put in our bodies. His book is thought provoking. I agree with Polly that our food supply is a big problem. I am not defending or disputing anything Pollan says - it goes deeper than that for me. At the end of the day I want to feel good about what I eat for my own health, but also the ripple affect of that choice on so many variables. I ask many more questions than I used to about where my food came from and how it was produced.
Mary Beth
"If you believe it will work out, you'll see opportunities. If you believe it won't you will see obstacles." - Dr. Wayne Dyer
Reading your post, Tex, brought to mind something my sister told me a couple of days ago. There was a big news story in Norway, about how fish distributors injected fish with water to increase their weight, so they would be worth more. How do these people sleep at night???
As far as organic foods, your news are very discouraging. I know I react to the beautiful, puffy, chicken breasts sold at Costco, but I seem to be fine with the local, organic ones sold at my Natural Grocers - so, there must be a fair number of honest people out there (at least I hope so).
Love,
Kari
As far as organic foods, your news are very discouraging. I know I react to the beautiful, puffy, chicken breasts sold at Costco, but I seem to be fine with the local, organic ones sold at my Natural Grocers - so, there must be a fair number of honest people out there (at least I hope so).
Love,
Kari
"My mouth waters whenever I pass a bakery shop and sniff the aroma of fresh bread, but I am also grateful simply to be alive and sniffing." Dr. Bernstein
That's BS. The stomach is designed to be a highly-acidic digestion vessel. If you've read much about anatomy, you probably already know that the lining of the stomach is continually being replaced with new cells, and the total cycle takes only about 6 days to be completed. That prevents the stomach from digesting itself.over time the acids eat away at the rumen wall, allowing bacteria to enter the animal's bloodstream.
Those microbes mostly wind up in the manure, not the liver. A lot of parasites wind up in the liver, and they tend to cause most of the lesions that are seen on many livers. Aflatoxin can cause severe damage to the liver, because that is it's destination, and liver damage is one of the most serious laboratory markers of aflatoxicosis. It's generally true that the livers are rejected at slaughter, for at least 15 to 30% of feedlot cattle, but that's due to parasites, to some degree, and mostly due to the aflatoxin, rather than the grain itself . Also, feedlot operators do not buffer the acid with drugs - that would be an expensive way to go about it. They use plain old calcium carbonate and/or bicarbonate of soda, just as you and I would do, depending on the rest of their ration ingredients. Either the vet he interviewed, or Pollan himself, obviously had an agenda.These microbes wind up in the liver, where they form abscesses and impair the liver's function. Between 15-30% of feedlot cows are found at slughter to have abscesed livers". He goes on to talk about the drugs used to buffer the acid and antibiotics to prevent infection.
If you want to see some cattle livers that will turn your stomach, just take a tour of a slaughter facility that specializes in organically-produced cattle. The rejection rate there is usually 100%, or thereabouts, because there is no practical way to control the parasites and other microorganisms that end up in the liver. Also, those cattle typically have many other health issues, due to they're being off limits for antibiotics, parasite control chemicals, etc. If you doubt what I'm saying, I have buddy who is the top salesman for the biggest supplier of slaughterhouse equipment and supplies in the U. S. and Canada, and he would be happy to arrange permission for you to tour such a facility, to see for yourself.
That's no worse than the common practice of injecting "tenderizing" and/or "moisturizing" solutions into chickens, (and in some cases, into beef and pork), in this country. The last time I checked a label, most of those chickens contain around 13% by weight, of "broth", which is actually just water with some phosphates added. Strangely, most consumers are dumb enough to pay the full price per pound for water with a few cheap chemicals.Kari wrote:There was a big news story in Norway, about how fish distributors injected fish with water to increase their weight, so they would be worth more. How do these people sleep at night???
Over the course of a year, that adds up to millions and millions of consumer dollars spent on water. Sure there are. The trick, of course, is to figure out which ones they are.Kari wrote:so, there must be a fair number of honest people out there (at least I hope so).
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Fascinating discussion here!
Tex, as usual I enjoy reading your well-thought out comments. I had forgotten our earlier discussions of how detrimental aflatoxin can be. And there you go raising the MAP issue again. You and I will probably go to our graves believing that MAP plays a major role in MC. LOL. Remember when we discovered that cinnamon could kill MAP (at least in a test tube?). Well, ever since then, I do not miss an opportunity to add cinnamon to my foods. Can't hurt and may help. That's my philosophy.
Mary Beth, you raise some excellent points too. For me, as one with at least 40 food sensitivities, I have learned that my food has to be as "pure" as possible. In fact, when I reacted to raspberries recently, I realized that they were not organic, which made me wonder if I might have reacted to pesticide residue (I know that berries are likely to have high residues). So I will have to test again using organic berries.
You all make an interesting point about finding someone honest to buy food from. I am so lucky that we have a nearby farm that has been in the same family for over 400 years. The chickens and beef are pastured. Of course, in wintertime the chickens can choose to spend most of their time indoors and can choose to eat a feed mix, but they are encouraged to go outside and eat grass as much as possible. In fact, their water bowls are kept outside and away from the barn to encourage them to be outside as much as possible. It is so much fun to pull up to the farm and see them all run up to greet you. And they are not exposed to artifical light 24/7 like commercial chickens are to keep them laying. And even though they may not be totally pastured, I'll tell you this: their eggs have dark orange yolks and a far better taste than commercial eggs. I hope I never have to eat a commercial egg again.
I think it's important to support the local farmers. Sure, there are always rip-off artists, but the smaller the farm and the more you know the farmer, the better. I can walk anywhere on this farm and look at anything I want. Total transparency. My philosophy: If I have a choice, I will always buy organic, local, and preferably heirloom foods. Yes, it costs more, but it's my health we're talking about here. I am worth it! LOL! And with my multiple sensitivies, I really don't have much choice.
Love,
Polly
P.S. There has been a huge shfit, according to my farmer, in the last decade, even with the poor economy. Ten years ago they had difficulty selling everything. Now, it's quite the opposite - demand exceeds capacity. So, the more of us who move in this direction, the more small independent farmers will initiate/stay in business.
Tex, as usual I enjoy reading your well-thought out comments. I had forgotten our earlier discussions of how detrimental aflatoxin can be. And there you go raising the MAP issue again. You and I will probably go to our graves believing that MAP plays a major role in MC. LOL. Remember when we discovered that cinnamon could kill MAP (at least in a test tube?). Well, ever since then, I do not miss an opportunity to add cinnamon to my foods. Can't hurt and may help. That's my philosophy.
Mary Beth, you raise some excellent points too. For me, as one with at least 40 food sensitivities, I have learned that my food has to be as "pure" as possible. In fact, when I reacted to raspberries recently, I realized that they were not organic, which made me wonder if I might have reacted to pesticide residue (I know that berries are likely to have high residues). So I will have to test again using organic berries.
You all make an interesting point about finding someone honest to buy food from. I am so lucky that we have a nearby farm that has been in the same family for over 400 years. The chickens and beef are pastured. Of course, in wintertime the chickens can choose to spend most of their time indoors and can choose to eat a feed mix, but they are encouraged to go outside and eat grass as much as possible. In fact, their water bowls are kept outside and away from the barn to encourage them to be outside as much as possible. It is so much fun to pull up to the farm and see them all run up to greet you. And they are not exposed to artifical light 24/7 like commercial chickens are to keep them laying. And even though they may not be totally pastured, I'll tell you this: their eggs have dark orange yolks and a far better taste than commercial eggs. I hope I never have to eat a commercial egg again.
I think it's important to support the local farmers. Sure, there are always rip-off artists, but the smaller the farm and the more you know the farmer, the better. I can walk anywhere on this farm and look at anything I want. Total transparency. My philosophy: If I have a choice, I will always buy organic, local, and preferably heirloom foods. Yes, it costs more, but it's my health we're talking about here. I am worth it! LOL! And with my multiple sensitivies, I really don't have much choice.
Love,
Polly
P.S. There has been a huge shfit, according to my farmer, in the last decade, even with the poor economy. Ten years ago they had difficulty selling everything. Now, it's quite the opposite - demand exceeds capacity. So, the more of us who move in this direction, the more small independent farmers will initiate/stay in business.
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly wrote:P.S. There has been a huge shfit, according to my farmer, in the last decade, even with the poor economy. Ten years ago they had difficulty selling everything. Now, it's quite the opposite - demand exceeds capacity. So, the more of us who move in this direction, the more small independent farmers will initiate/stay in business.
The bottom line in all types of agriculture has definitely improved during the last decade. The small family farm almost became extinct, prior to that, because no one could afford to do it, unless they had a substantial, reliable income from an outside source. IOW, small-scale farming was an expensive hobby. Due to economics, (and government policies), the mandate during the 80's and 90's was to "get big, or get out".
Now, though, the small family farm model is once again becoming doable, and I have a hunch that it may once again become popular. Many people really enjoy the "back to nature" work, and the simpler and more wholesome lifestyle, provided that they can pay the bills. And, there's no better place to raise a family, than on a family farm.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex,
Think I'll pass on the slaughtehouse tour
Back in 1990 I watched a documentary and it made me become vegetarian. Not a great option for a grain and legume intolerant person.
I actually prefer the taste of grass fed beef and am also interested in the nutritional benefits (CLA and actually fewer calories). Not saying I won't ever eat grain fed meat . . . of course I will, but my preference is having animals fed as they were intended - same approach I take for myself. I also think it is important to support the small, local farmer.
Polly,
I have been buying locally as well, have a winter and summer garden, got to farmers markets etc. I am sourcing out various meats. It certainly does cost more and I agree that we are worth it!!
Love,
Mary Beth
Think I'll pass on the slaughtehouse tour
Back in 1990 I watched a documentary and it made me become vegetarian. Not a great option for a grain and legume intolerant person. I actually prefer the taste of grass fed beef and am also interested in the nutritional benefits (CLA and actually fewer calories). Not saying I won't ever eat grain fed meat . . . of course I will, but my preference is having animals fed as they were intended - same approach I take for myself. I also think it is important to support the small, local farmer.
Polly,
I have been buying locally as well, have a winter and summer garden, got to farmers markets etc. I am sourcing out various meats. It certainly does cost more and I agree that we are worth it!!
Love,
Mary Beth
"If you believe it will work out, you'll see opportunities. If you believe it won't you will see obstacles." - Dr. Wayne Dyer
We are so lucky in the US that, for most of us, even eating pretty well can be done with a reasonable percentage of income, compared to many other places. Of course there is hunger and poverty here. But I feel very fortunate that cheapness has never had to be my *primary* criterion for choosing what to eat. I don't want to spend stupid-money, but even before MC, and even in my penny-pinching youth, my main choices were about preference, pleasure, interest, and health.
I always think when people complain that farmer markets or good-quality meats are pricey... well, you could eat dirt for free! Or you can dumpster dive.... No thanks!
Sadly, there are people going hungry even in our most affluent communities. And there are plenty of neighborhoods in NYC where there's very little access to decent food, at any price. The varying number of people per supermarket here, by neighborhood, really shocked me when I learned about it, at the time our CSA was starting up. It was 6,000 to 7,000 people/supermarket in a couple of very upscale neighborhoods in Manhattan, 13,000ish in another area more like mine, and more like 60,000 in a neighborhood not far from here. So in some poorer areas, people need to spend another transit fare (at least one) each time they shop, plus the time, adding a few dollars to every grocery bill.
Uh oh, I just remembered I promised I was going to get concise. I'll add "relevant" to that list of ambitions... but I do find all that interesting. And I don't think Americans got pudgy just because we're stupid and lazy. It's more complicated than that.
Sara
I always think when people complain that farmer markets or good-quality meats are pricey... well, you could eat dirt for free! Or you can dumpster dive.... No thanks!
Sadly, there are people going hungry even in our most affluent communities. And there are plenty of neighborhoods in NYC where there's very little access to decent food, at any price. The varying number of people per supermarket here, by neighborhood, really shocked me when I learned about it, at the time our CSA was starting up. It was 6,000 to 7,000 people/supermarket in a couple of very upscale neighborhoods in Manhattan, 13,000ish in another area more like mine, and more like 60,000 in a neighborhood not far from here. So in some poorer areas, people need to spend another transit fare (at least one) each time they shop, plus the time, adding a few dollars to every grocery bill.
Uh oh, I just remembered I promised I was going to get concise. I'll add "relevant" to that list of ambitions... but I do find all that interesting. And I don't think Americans got pudgy just because we're stupid and lazy. It's more complicated than that.
Sara
Like you, Polly, I have a neighbor who has free range chickens and sells the eggs (although they have access to "feed"). The eggs are quite different and I love them.
There is also a farm not too far from me that raises grass fed beef, their own pork and free range chickens. I go as often as I can to buy meat there. Mainly hamburger, breakfast sausage, Italian sausage, etc. It is delicious. The meat is processed in a local slaughterhouse which has a good reputation around here.
Love, Shirley
There is also a farm not too far from me that raises grass fed beef, their own pork and free range chickens. I go as often as I can to buy meat there. Mainly hamburger, breakfast sausage, Italian sausage, etc. It is delicious. The meat is processed in a local slaughterhouse which has a good reputation around here.
Love, Shirley
When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber"
-- Winston Churchill
-- Winston Churchill