Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] manures/GAP training

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "maury sheets" <maurysheets AT verizon.net>
  • To: "'Market Farming'" <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] manures/GAP training
  • Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:56:45 -0500

Rivka,

 

Cattle don’t get E. Coli 0157-h7 (the bad kind), but they do carry it along with many other species such as pigs and deer.  They cannot get the disease because certain receptors needed for it are missing at the cellular level.  We do have those receptors however and can get sick from it.   We are fighting the wrong battle in this area.  We should be fighting antibacterial soap usage and other such items used as a matter of course in the household.  You can be TOO clean.  If you are, your immune system will suffer for it.

 

Maury Sheets

Woodland Produce

South jersey where it is finally raining for a change.

 

From: market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Road's End Farm
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:40 PM
To: Market Farming
Subject: Re: [Market-farming] manures/GAP training

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:29 PM, KAKerby AT aol.com wrote:



 But recent findings amongst wild elk in the Rockies indicates that grain-fed versus not-grain-fed doesn't matter. 

 

 

Well, all that would indicate is that it doesn't matter with elk; or, at least, that non-grain-fed elk can carry it.

 

Wouldn't it have been easier to do the studies on grass-fed cattle than on elk? Or are there such studies, and they do show that grass-fed cattle are at least less likely to carry pathogenic strains than grain-fed cattle, but the elk study better suited the presenter?

 

I don't think there's any disagreement that a wide range of creatures can get pathogenic E Coli -- in fact, if only feedlot cattle got it, there wouldn't be any danger for humans. The question is, what practice significantly encourages the production of the pathogens? Is it growing produce in fields open to wildlife? Or is it raising cattle in feedlots? If the latter practice contributes more to the problem than the former, it seems to me entirely unreasonable to try to make everyone grow produce in sterile conditions, while not shutting down the feedlots. (I'm not holding my breath on this one. Uncracked eggs used to be perfectly safe to eat raw. When chronic salmonella oviduct infections started making this untrue, the problem originated in large confined chicken operations. Instead of closing those down to protect not-yet-infected operations as well as the general public, which would have made eggs slightly more expensive and massively annoyed a small number of very large producers, we all got told to hardboil our eggs.)

 

 

-- Rivka; Finger Lakes NY, Zone 5 mostly

Fresh-market organic produce, small scale

 

 

 




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page