Teaching Nigerians to raise snails and grasscutters.
Animal Health for the Environment and Development
We sometimes talk about agricultural biodiversity as if there’s a line that separates it from other kinds of — wild — biodiversity, but of course it doesn’t work like that. There are all kinds of intearactions. For example, diseases can move from wild to domesticated species. Given all the zoonotic diseases that have made the news lately, it seems like it would be sensible to look at human, domestic animal and wildlife health together, rather than in isolation from each other. But apparently such an integrated approach is pretty rare. An initiative of the Wildlife Conservation Society is trying to change all that:
…improving livestock health not only improves human nutrition and incomes, but in the case of zoonotic diseases also contributes directly to improved human health. In addition, healthier domestic animals contribute to securing healthier wildlife (and vice versa), decreasing chances of disease transmission at the livestock/wildlife interface. These cross-sectoral benefits are not all “automatic,” but require that explicit linkages be made between improved food security and health and more sustainable environmental stewardship from the household and community levels on up.
Mystery camel ailment
Saudi camels are dying in droves. Boffins baffled.
Exterminating the American bison
Advanced European tanning technology did for the buffalo. Not all the men with guns.
All cows are not equal
Cows produce milk, right? Its qualities vary among breeds, with creamy Jersey milk at one end and that skimmed milk cow at the other. And the quantity varies within a breed, which is how we got to the monster lactation machines that are the modern Friesian. But until this morning I had no idea that there was a distinct difference in the type of milk produced by cows within a breed.
Apparently, the major protein in milk, beta-casein, comes in two different forms, called A1 and A2 (original, huh). Some cows have both forms of casein in their milk, some only A1 and some only A2. (Students of genetics will want to know the ratios. I can’t seem to find them.) The A2 corporation, which has registered and trademarked A2 milkâ„¢, says that the A2 form is the original, and that at some point in the past a mutation produced A1. It also hints strongly that as a result, pure A2 milk is better for you. There seems to be some evidence floating around out there, but none of it is overwhelmingly positive.
Anyway, one can determine which cows produce what milk with a simple DNA test, and this morning’s awakening came from a report about the first dairy farm in the US to separate the milk from its A2 cows. A dairy company in Lincoln, Nebraska has started to market A2 milk in the US. To say they are cagey about the exact health claims they are making for this premium priced product would be the understatement of the week.
“To say there is no controversy over this would not be correct,” said Timothy Thietje, CEO of The Original Foods Company, a Nebraska-based marketer of A2 Milk.
“But to say there’s a substantial body of evidence both in terms of science and the response from people who use the product is correct.”
Right.
All this started in New Zealand and Australia, where the milk is marketed without the approval of the milk boards; what would all those other farmers do? But could this, just possibly, be a case in which reducing diversity might be good for you?