Arizona Chickens

[Demosthine]

That makes sense about body weight gain and skim vs. whole milk.    People drinking skim are more likely consuming more carbohydrates and fewer fats leading to increased fat storage due to increased insulin release.  


I prefer actual science.

I do too, bit if there isn't any published science to verify or dispute a claim, I have to go with what is available. Plus, my personal interactions with a dozen or so formerly lactose intolerant coworkers has validated the claims in my personal circle. Every one of them has been able to drink raw milk without an issue once I got them to try it. Some for the first time in a decade.

 

[Gallo del Cielo]

My partner is lactose intolerant but he can drink raw milk without the usual gastrointestinal upset. He tolerates raw goat milk even better. We are lucky to have a raw milk dairy in Arizona (Save Your Dairy). There is a lady in Tucson who runs a milk group so we can get the raw milk at cost ($10/gallon) without having to go up to Casa Grande. She is just doing it as a public service, really. She does not mark up the milk

. I just loved the raw goat milk when we had goats and the Nigerian Dwarf breed that we had has the highest butterfat, plus being a small breed dairy goat, they are easier to handle, house, and feed. But having milk goats will really tie you down, that's why I sold them. Now I am tied down with more poultry than I had when I kept the goats....all the goat pens were converted into turkey pens! Then I wanted more breeds of turkeys, so divided 2 of the goat pens in half, to make 4 turkey pens. Is it never ending?

I occasionally hear of lactose intolerant people reporting that raw milk doesn't induce the same symptoms as pasteurized. It makes me wonder how it might operate. As far as I know, there is only one scientific study that has compared symptoms in lactose intolerant people consuming raw and pasteurized milk and it was quite striking in the results. In this double-blind study raw milk produced nearly identical effects as did pasteurized milk. There were some people that were at the low end of the symptoms with raw milk and perhaps your partner would fall in that range, but the overall pattern is strong. Ironically, the study was funded, in part, by the Weston Price foundation.

All this might sound like I'm against raw milk. I'm not. I was raised on raw milk from birth until the time I left home as an adult. I personally milked most of that from the time I was big enough to carry the bucket. I think that people should be able to sell raw milk and people should be able to buy it. I think there may be benefits to raw vs. pasteurized, but the studies just aren't there to support that yet. I have to say though, raw milk did not help with my lactose intolerance.

 

[LadyKotaDoria]

I can not find the information I am going to try to communicate. Accuracy is not Possable, I can only generalized.

By the time a child is 3 years old a child immune system has had its training completed. Children that are exposed to pathogens in the air, bacteria of all kinds have a healthy system set up in their body. Good bacteria is established, and now their body knows what to attack. No allergies is the result.

Antibiotics kill all bacteria, including what is needed. (We know this). Do to recent study's of mothers milk, they have figured out why human mothers milk as a untainted that we can not use nor digest. It was/is not in formula because it was not necessary. Wrong, its very important. When a child is born they take in fluids from the mother and the birth canal. The bacteria that is in this fluid is important to develop the immune system. The nutrient in mothers milk is there to feed that/those bacteria. Without that the bacteria will not develop in large enough numbers or not at all.

Experiments are underway, were patients that have had all there immune system destroyed have stomach bacteria cultures implanted and it is feed a mothers milk to help it grow. Improving the health and recovery of such patients.

Baby's born via Cesarian Section, do not have Bactria colony's in their stomach.

The milke of other animals have not been studied in they study to see if they also have I eliment in their milk that dose the same thing.

 

[kevs-chickadees]

Wow. Just, Wow. Was this in Phoenix? I didn't think we had opossums in Arizona, but an online check says otherwise. Whoever posted that is pretty confused. "Cat Found." No wonder it's "not very friendly."

I like how it first said male and then was changed to female with the small fe. Perhaps this also aided in the "not very friendly".

 

[LadyKotaDoria]

I had sold a hen that haven't laid in many months. The young man I sold her to stopped by to day, hoping it could sell him another. He told me she was really good, she was fat and tender. I knew she was to fat, pleased to heir she was tender. So many people keep saying after a year or more stew or pressure cooker. Maybe the fermented feed . . . .

 

[Demosthine]

I occasionally hear of lactose intolerant people reporting that raw milk doesn't induce the same symptoms as pasteurized. It makes me wonder how it might operate. As far as I know, there is only one scientific study that has compared symptoms in lactose intolerant people consuming raw and pasteurized milk and it was quite striking in the results. In this double-blind study raw milk produced nearly identical effects as did pasteurized milk. There were some people that were at the low end of the symptoms with raw milk and perhaps your partner would fall in that range, but the overall pattern is strong. Ironically, the study was funded, in part, by the Weston Price foundation.

All this might sound like I'm against raw milk. I'm not. I was raised on raw milk from birth until the time I left home as an adult. I personally milked most of that from the time I was big enough to carry the bucket. I think that people should be able to sell raw milk and people should be able to buy it. I think there may be benefits to raw vs. pasteurized, but the studies just aren't there to support that yet. I have to say though, raw milk did not help with my lactose intolerance.

Hmm, interesting information. It does point out one of the comments I believe I had previously mentioned earlier. It's very possible that a large amount of those claiming "lactose intolerant" are misdiagnosed. As with a great many of our diseases, doctors most likely go with patient disclosure rather than scientific testing. That's one of the problems with the antibiotic dilemma right now. Based on verbal testimony, it may or may not be a particular disease, but we are going to prescribe this and if it doesn't work, come back in two weeks. Even though testing for lactose intolerance is extremely easy, it doesn't appear widely done. That double-blind study would support that belief. Of 63 patients who made it past the initial screening, 36 failed the hydrogen breath test. That's 57% of the applicants. Have you had the scientific testing done or is it self-diagnosed/verbally diagnosed? I'm quite curious to know. This stuff fascinates me. My personal experience with my eldest daughter has confirmed this, but it was impossible to get our insurance to cover the cost for the intolerance testing. And at over $600, we can't afford it. After a fluke accident with Halloween candy, we think it was more of a too-healthy diet lacking sugars than the intolerance.

The study leads me to several problems and further questions that definitely need studied. If 57% of the applicants failed the HBT, what was their true diagnosis and what affect does raw milk actually have on them? If all of this rejected "lactose intolerant" population could truly benefit from raw milk, I would think it would definitely be something worth exploring. Second, which was readily admitted by the authors in the abstract I found, was that this was a very, very small sample size by nearly all standards. Sixteen test subjects would essentially amount to a high school science project. Those sample rates have never been acceptable in any other study I've seen and are immediately pointed out by the pro-vaccination crowds especially. It's a good foundation and I'm not opposed to it as an initial study, but it needs some serious expansion in to a nationwide study.

But more importantly, I think the primary flaw in the study is the duration of exposure. The probiotics we have taken and have in our house currently, state that it may take one to three weeks for severe symptoms to diminish, while healthy persons may take significantly longer to notice an improvement. The study used 8-day periods for testing, which would be a short period of time for a person with severely unbalanced flora to notice any difference, before using a clean-out diet and restarting the cycle. The effects of probiotics is a long-term situation and needs a proper study to determine those true effects. For multiple dose trials, the FDA has a minimum recommended period of 2 weeks, if I am reading their criteria correctly. I can tell you that recovering from a regular upset stomach which results in diarrhea takes longer than a week!


I think the single most important thing is that we need far more unbiased research in to these types of topics. Right along with this, though, is the absolute requirement for more sanitary and humane methods of husbandry. The types of animal keeping that the commercial industries maintain is despicable and only permitted because of their ridiculously large pocketbooks. Organic Pastures and PolyFace Farms are prime examples of how pure, organic, humane and clean farming operations can be extremely successful.

 

[RockNSuccess]

That has GOT to be a joke! I didn't think there were possums in AZ.

 

[RockNSuccess]

Maybe if they drank chicken milk, they wouldn't be lactose intolerant!

 

[Demosthine]

Maybe if they drank chicken milk, they wouldn't be lactose intolerant!

After poking holes in all those freezer bags, chickens were genetically modified to be nipple-free, making them really difficult to milk...

 

[Timskins]

My Light Brahmas have grown much faster and are almost twice as large as the rest of my flock. For awhile I was wondering if they had some cornish genes in them. I think I figured out why after one has been making a very horrible attempt at crowing. :-( These are my first birds so I wasn't to sure what to look for in cockerels and it appears that Light Brahama's dont look like the typical cockerel as well making it more difficult. From looking around the web they dont appear to grow the large comb or tail feathers as most breeds do. Attached are a couple of pics of them what do you think boys or girls?