OMG HOWS THIS!!!!!!

Pinkhotstar QLD • Posts: 163

1 31 Jan 2011

After watching the best speech ever link that someone posted on here, and getting into an argument on FB with a friend, I decided to inquire what the Australian standard or regulation was for Somatic Cell Count (pus) in milk. So I called them, when none of the dairy websites even come close to having Somatic Cell Count words in it, well not that i could find. Guess what, according to Dairy Food Safety Victoria, there is no limit. If Australia is exporting the milk, AQUIS requires that it has less than 400, 000 parts (and I didn't hear what Gary said, in terms of millilitres/litres, I get dodgy reception on my mobile here) but the issue is, there is no regulation to how much SCC is allowed in our milk. Sorry, you guys might not care as much as I do, but after having my friend turn the debate into a personal attack on how I care for my animals, (because apparently keeping my dogs confined in the house with me is against their natural instincts or creates behavioural problems, or whatever the hell she was trying to have a dig at me about, and she may be right, but I deem that their health and safety is paramount to letting them do whatever the hell they want. And they are safer in my control, than being left to roam free and be hit by a car, bitten by a snake or whatever) So yeah I just had to post something on here to gloat to myself and anyone else who agrees.

0

wild child2 QLD • Posts: 2638

2 31 Jan 2011

Is there no limit because it's not a health issue?
Sorry, I don't know much about it.

Are there studies regarding somatic cells affects on human health?

0

Pinkhotstar QLD • Posts: 163

3 31 Jan 2011

I'm guessing it is not a health issue because milk is pasteurised which makes it safe to drink, but it does not remove the pus, milk drinkers are drinking pus with their milk, only its safe to drink. I said that to dad and he said 'does that mean if we sanitise shit its ok to eat,' hehe

+ 1

Pinkhotstar QLD • Posts: 163

4 31 Jan 2011

But as an after thought, if other countries require the count to be below a certain level, does that indicate something?

0

wild child2 QLD • Posts: 2638

5 31 Jan 2011

Pinkhotstar said:

I'm guessing it is not a health issue because milk is pasteurised which makes it safe to drink, but it does not remove the pus, milk drinkers are drinking pus with their milk, only its safe to drink. I said that to dad and he said 'does that mean if we sanitise shit its ok to eat,' hehe

LOL

Well I've cut out most dairy - I rarely have cheese (& very rarely consume any other dairy). Over christmas I had a bit more than usual - we had friends over from germany that made this famous german dairy dish for christmas day and my goodness, I broke out in so much acne along my jawline (usually have a clear face) and I swear it's from the hormones in dairy.
Not to mention I think I've already developed lactose intolerance now because I also got a crook stomach - which is great news! Another reason to avoid it!

+ 1

Ellim United Kingdom • Posts: 480

6 31 Jan 2011

It's not technically a health issue, but you never really know if the milk you are drinking has been pasturised correctly. Apparently it is not uncommon for this to occur.

Plus - it means that there is absolutely no incentive for farmers to treat cows with mastitis. Not that they would anyway.

I can't believe that there is no upper limit. That is just horrible.

+ 1

wild child2 QLD • Posts: 2638

7 31 Jan 2011

Pinkhotstar said:

But as an after thought, if other countries require the count to be below a certain level, does that indicate something?

It may need to be under that amount because of the time lapsed during exportation? Bacteria would obviously have to be an issue when you referring to pus being present...
Pasteurization only extends shelf life

0

Pinkhotstar QLD • Posts: 163

8 31 Jan 2011

I'm guessing there is a slight incentive, as an infection left for too long, I'm guessing you would eventually see blood in the product, and that would, and I'm guess again, be a big no no from the industry stand point. But my understanding, is that these SCC's aren't just from mastitis, as the actual udder becomes hard and sore, but the SCC's are also from ulceration around and inside the teats due to constant milking/machines. I'm not an expert on this in any way shape or form, so I don't know if the ulceration can lead to mastitis or what, but I'm guessing they can get mastitis without ulcerations, as I used to see whelping bitches at work with mastitis.

0

wild child2 QLD • Posts: 2638

9 31 Jan 2011

Pinkhotstar said:

I'm guessing there is a slight incentive, as an infection left for too long, I'm guessing you would eventually see blood in the product, and that would, and I'm guess again, be a big no no from the industry stand point. But my understanding, is that these SCC's aren't just from mastitis, as the actual udder becomes hard and sore, but the SCC's are also from ulceration around and inside the teats due to constant milking/machines. I'm not an expert on this in any way shape or form, so I don't know if the ulceration can lead to mastitis or what, but I'm guessing they can get mastitis without ulcerations, as I used to see whelping bitches at work with mastitis.

It's no surprise, these cows are milked constantly for their entire lives sad

0

Ellim United Kingdom • Posts: 480

10 31 Jan 2011

You are probably right Pink, my understanding though is that the leading cause of pus in milk was from mastitis.

However - I only found out about the whole thing *after* I was already vegan so I admittedly didn't pay super close attention.

It still doesn't seem cool, though.

0

Sorry I am probably a little bit too excited about this.