good to have a win, bst

[screener]

After a ban on rbst in Canada back in 1998, it looks like Monsanto has accepted defeat, and decided to cut its losses.

Farmers pleased Monsanto is getting out of cow hormone business

"The hormone, manufactured from genetically modified bacteria, is injected into dairy cows once or twice a month to boost their milk production. The increased production is said to cause cows to have a higher rate of illnesses, including mastitis, udder infections, and digestive problems.

"We will keep an eye on them," Mackay said. "These guys have big money for lobbyists and scientists. They might try to reintroduce it [in Canada].

"They have a lot more money to spend than a bunch of farmers from Renfrew County."

[Cricket Tragic]

Monsanto have sold rBGH to Elanco for $300 million.

http://www.elanco.com/images/Posilac...e_08-20-08.pdf

Elanco already market the product outside the US.

[screener]

No kidding, $300 million should be enough to assuage those nasty feelings of being in the wrong. In the media there are terms like unloading a liability, unsuccessful at forcing the removal of rBST labelling on milk. Let's hope on their next realization of having done something like this that they aren't able to find someone like eli Lilly to bail them out.

And what's with them, can't read the writing on the wall? they aren't another subsidiary of Monsanto being left holding the bag are they?

[UrbanFarmboy]

All this did was increase the price of milk and lower the sustainability of dairy production.

I can't believe you people are applauding somthing that will require more water, more feed, more land and release more greenhouse gasses to produce the same amount of product.

Not to mention that chemical analysis has proven that there is absolutly no difference between milk from cows treated with rBST and those who weren't.

[screener]

Originally Posted by UrbanFarmboy

All this did was increase the price of milk and lower the sustainability of dairy production.

I can't believe you people are applauding somthing that will require more water, more feed, more land and release more greenhouse gasses to produce the same amount of product.

If you look at the concerns raised by the farmers, perhaps you'll see that they hope it will increase the sustainability of the cows.

Do you think that when the cows are on rBST that they produce milk out of nothing? The same resources have to go into the cow per litre of production. If they do produce something out of nothing that would be something that Monsanto wouldn't let go of.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by screener

If you look at the concerns raised by the farmers, perhaps you'll see that they hope it will increase the sustainability of the cows.

Do you think that when the cows are on rBST that they produce milk out of nothing? The same resources have to go into the cow per litre of production. If they do produce something out of nothing that would be something that Monsanto wouldn't let go of.

The phazing out of rBST had nothing to do with the product and everything to do with a marketing ploy by food companies to make more money.

And yes, they are producing more milk using the same resources. rBST allows cows to use food and water more efficiently therefore reducing the necessary intake to produce a fixed amount of output.

You are absolutely wrong in that the same resources have to go into a cow per liter of production. Why do you think farmers rushed to use rBST?

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/bauman/...t/abstract.pdf

[screener]

Thanks for the suggestion urbanfarmboy, I was looking at a few articles and of the five, three said that increases of feed were required to gain the extra production. one said simply that the same kind of feed was given to the subjects and the control group, with no mention of quantity, and one said nothing about feed at all.

In the reading I did it appears that most of the incentive to use growth hormones was in relation to cows who had not become pregnant when inseminated and were therefore going to be a unproductive for the farmer until the next time around. The farmer could then do some injecting of rBST to induce milk production in an otherwise dry cow. The percentage of production in these cases is apparently about 80% that of a cow who has gone through pregnancy.

As I pointed out in the thread opener, the harm done to the cows was the first concern of farmers pleased with the ban. With many of the factory dairy farms in the States still using rBST apparently that concern isn't felt at that level of production.

Perhaps you could give some clearer indication of how this was "a marketing ploy by food companies to make more money."

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by screener

Thanks for the suggestion urbanfarmboy, I was looking at a few articles and of the five, three said that increases of feed were required to gain the extra production. one said simply that the same kind of feed was given to the subjects and the control group, with no mention of quantity, and one said nothing about feed at all.

In the reading I did it appears that most of the incentive to use growth hormones was in relation to cows who had not become pregnant when inseminated and were therefore going to be a unproductive for the farmer until the next time around. The farmer could then do some injecting of rBST to induce milk production in an otherwise dry cow. The percentage of production in these cases is apparently about 80% that of a cow who has gone through pregnancy.

As I pointed out in the thread opener, the harm done to the cows was the first concern of farmers pleased with the ban. With many of the factory dairy farms in the States still using rBST apparently that concern isn't felt at that level of production.

Perhaps you could give some clearer indication of how this was "a marketing ploy by food companies to make more money."

It was marketing ploy because their margins were falling as commodity prices and the cost of energy rose. So in order to gain a bit of that back, they chose to do something that would cost them absolutely nothing and allow them to charge a premium for it.

They sent letters to farmers saying they would no longer purchase milk from them if they used rBST and the put a a number of misleading labels on their product to prod consumers into purchasing the higher priced milk.

In my local grocery store, they store has two brands of milk. One has a label, big and bold saying that it comes from cows not treated with rBST. The other does not have a label on it. The one carrying the label is 50 cents more per gallon. Eventually, all the milk in my area will be labeled rBST free as I live in an "affluent" area where people supposedly care about this sort of thing. So even though I purchase the lower price milk, I will soon have no choice but to pay fort he more expensive brand because some clever person in the marketing department found a way to charge more for the exact same product and make consumers feel they are getting a better product.

[screener]

urban farmboy, I have a hard time differentiating between the various theys and thems. can you help me with that?

The products may chemically and biologically be very similar to each other, but if one is causing serious strain on the cows to get that production, then I presume that in the mind of the consumer it is worth paying the extra .50/ gallon.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by screener

urban farmboy, I have a hard time differentiating between the various theys and thems. can you help me with that?

The products may chemically and biologically be very similar to each other, but if one is causing serious strain on the cows to get that production, then I presume that in the mind of the consumer it is worth paying the extra .50/ gallon.

You have to realize that farmers have more to gain from keeping their cows happy and healthy for as long as they can. There may be a shortened time period with which a cow can produce milk using rBST, but that doesn't mean that the animal is being hurt in any way. There are claims that rBST increases the prevalence of mastitis, but that has more to do with production and milking practices than rBST.

The simple fact remains that the cows are healthy and produce more milk utilizing fewer resources at the same time.

The theys and thems refer to food companies and grocery store chains. I generally use them together because there are few differences between their marketing strategy.