In article <gc4358$pr3$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Scheidt <dscheidt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAMDIE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>:If we paid for milk in terms of percentage fat, the beat-up would make
>:sense. We here in Australia don't. Skim milk costs if anything more than
>:regular milk, because it costs more to process than whole milk. The
beat-up
>:started smelling suspiciously like a paid advertisement for 'A2' brand
milk
>:to me.
>
>In the US -- and I'd suspect in Austria, given the amount of butter you
>ex****t -- one of the first things that's done to fluid milk when it
>reaches the dairy is to have all of the cream removed. Much of it is
>diverted to butter production, some of it is added back to the defatted
>milk, to produce the various grades of milk, ranging from nearly fatless,
>to skim, to "whole", to half-and-half, and to various grades of liquid
>cream. This is done because the butter fat is worth more than the fluid
>milk; cows are breed to produce an increased pro****tion of fat in their
>milks; farmers are paid both on a volume basis, and based on the fat
>content.
>
>Unless you're getting it straight from the cow, it's unlikely that any
>fluid milk product is processed any more or less than any other.
>They're all skimmed, homogonized and pasturized. The only thing that
>varies is how much of the fat that was removed is put back.
TUSIAVBP. Here in California I can buy three different brands of "raw"
milk, which are definitely processed a great deal less than the generic
homegenized milk brands.
|
