Talk:Dairy

Untitled
Undergoing large copy edit CaseInPoint July 5, 2005 01:43 (UTC)

I've now created the dairy farming article as a stub. Topics related to the production of fluid milk should go there. Topics related to the processing of milk should remain here. 18.24.0.120 03:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No use crying over spilt milk
I would say that there is an inordinately large and potentially inaccurate section relating to the disposal of milk.

1) In all my life, I have never heard of waste that required digging a hole to get rid off. Although, potentially it has happened in other areas. My point is that it is not common.
 * I have added some points to this area, with references. Annak123 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2) The detail is out of keeping with the detail of the rest of the article. It would be like taking half of the article on curry, and talking about how difficult it is to get curry stains out of t shirts.

Hang on, i better check that isn't the case! TF

anti-milk movement!
is there an article somewhere in wikipedia on the sizeable antidairy movement? it seems like that should be mentioned here as well, and linked to.

I have tried to link and put mention of diseases related to consuming milk, for which there is substantial evidence to ie diabetes, heart disease (high cholesterol / Saturated fat), etc however it has been deleted. perhaps the dairy industry has insiders working to not 'spoil' the great milk image! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.166.105 (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, was noticing the lack of any information relating to health effects in humans, and was concerned as well. Other articles I've edited in the past relating to the meat industry have been quickly re-edited. I don't know about any kind of conspiracy by these industries to keep the public from knowing the facts by monitoring Wikipedia articles, but there are plenty of people online, acting individually, who want to keep others from accessing those facts.

But that said, yes, this article should include discussion of health effects with citations from credible sources that are not associated with the dairy industry.

Well if so, it would only be fair to include the views of the "paleo diet" folks, who believe that milkfat (and indeed animal fats IN GENERAL, with special bonus points    for being saturated), are the most ideal, and most evolutionarily/historically/archeologically normal foodstuff, for homo sapiens. See, among several other good ones,

www.paleonu.com www.zeroinginonhealth.com

who do quote numerous clinical-nutrition studies in peer-reviewed journals
 * The diseases of which you speak are generally associated with modern diets, and over consumption, and not specifically a risk of dairy consumption.80.43.20.144 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

It is my personal opinion that this article is almost certainly safeguarded by industry stooges. I also believe that this is precisely the reason for the lack of information relating to dairy and health/diseases, in this article. I wouldn't be surprised if I get banned for expressing my opinion on that, despite strictly intending to provide response to and support of your query by doing so. The substantial lack of health related information on this page is inexcusable and not otherwise explainable. Tucking the info away on the less widely viewed 'Diary Product' page is, in my opinion, absolutely not adequate justification.CanisLupisArctus (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

diseases of the milk industry
Removed diabetes after a check of Medline, this is a hypothesis with more data against it than for it. Other disease claims should be supported by verifable citations, otherwise NPOV violation. Thatcher131 21:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Associated diseases section seems to need a fair bit of work, and addition of sources.Yames2 22:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted parts of several edits concerning dairy related diseases. This article has a broad scope. It covers both the dairy industry and dairy products. As such, it makes sense to (in the "associated diseases" section) include diseases related to dairy products as well as diseases related to the diary industry. I don't think it is appropriate to entirely remove well sourced information about any diseases because they relate to "dairy production" until such time as the "dairy production" article is created and information about dairy production is moved from this article to the yet uncreated one. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thatcher - can you please substatiate this claim: 'this is a hypothesis with more data against it than for it'.!this is a hypothesis with more data against it than for it'? CanisLupisArctus (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"dairy food group"
I think there should be a NUTRITION section that isolates and explains the health benefits etcetera of dairy foods. I think that's a common use this article might be expected to fulfill for people who land on this article. For example, I ended up here because someone just suggested dairy foods are a good source of protein. I was hoping to confirm or refute his claim based on this article. If there's a different wikipedia article that includes this, it should be listed under "see also". The "protein" article and ones linked from it were not much help either. Seeing as the products produced by "dairies" are exclusively food, and seeing as the word "dairy" often refers to a food group rather than a facility, a nutrition section is in order.

I agree that this article needs a section on the health effects, but want to stress that it should be unbiased, and therefore include coverage of negative health effects. No citing studies funded by the dairy industry!

Diseases Error
Cowpox would not protect against chicken pox as one is an orthopox virus and the other is an alphaherpesvirus. The correct virus for which protection is conferred is smallpox, as mentioned in the abstract of this draft from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no11/02-0814.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.121.12 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

correction made 20091019. DocKrin (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is way too long
This article needs to be split off into several different articles specializing in different aspects of dairy technology. The milking machine in particular can be a complete article in itself. I do not see why it is lumped into this huge article.

The waste handling is another section that could practically become its own article. It is quite shocking to discover that there is no article for barn cleaner on Wikipedia, and they've been in use for a good 50 years or so.

I will probably be splitting these article sections in the future. DMahalko (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs splitting, as it is confusing farm-based and processing aspects of the wider dairy industry. As an example, the title of the article is dairy but it really refers to dairy farming. I suggest this article should focus on the farm-based aspects of dairy farming, and a new article consider the processing aspects of milk in various products. Happy to help splitting the article. Annak123 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is human breast-milk considered "dairy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.243.29 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, human milk is not considered dairy. The general reason why is because dairy has historically related to milk that is used, mainly, for making milk-based products (aka dairy products). As breast milk is not intended for processing (even though it could be), it is not considered to be termed dairy. Annak123 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Invention tag
I added the Invented in Belgium category to the milking machine paragraph( Ferdinand Henard http://www.google.com/patents?id=07pSAAAAEBAJ  ) But dairy in general ended up on the inventions page. Is there a way to just add the milking machine? Or would that force the creation of a milking machine page entry? Thnx in advance for any reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.66 (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate vegan messages in the article
I find it very strange that this article (and a few others) contains weird claims by vegan scientists about animal fat and protein, while it contains literally nothing about the beneficial effects of dairy, the main ones being improved bone health (which is rigorously supported by controlled trials in humans, see review here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759135 ).

The claims under "concerns" include anecdote by several vegan physicians, with references to books written by these same physicians, as well as a book written by a layperson, as well as a selection of peer-reviewed studies that are small. Overall, the references definitely do not support the claims about animal fat, animal protein, or low-fat vegan diets. See discussion about this on this page here: ( http://authoritynutrition.com/wikipedia-tainted-with-vegan-propaganda/ ).

I'm new here, but I really dislike seeing this kind of stuff on a respectable site like Wikipedia that is supposed to be objective. This paragraph under "concerns" seems to be written with the intention of scaring people away from dairy products to promote the vegan message. This certainly doesn't belong here. Is there anyone here who would like to remove this, or should I do it myself? Krassssi (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirected Dairy Farming
The article "Dairy farming" was essentially a less-cited, poorly constructed version of this article. I redirected the "Dairy farming" article to this one. --AslanEntropy (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article may be misnamed. Note that dairy has as its first selection "A place, often on a farm, where milk is processed and turned into products such as butter and cheese." So "dairy" might well be a subsection of "dairy farming," but they are not equivalent. I suggest the name be changed to "Dairy farming" and the original "Diary Farming" be changed to "Dairy" and redirected here. Student7 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "dairy farm" is synonymous with "dairy." The farms are called "dairies." We can always undo the redirect and merge the two articles. Also, a "dairy plant" (where pasteurization and milk processing occurs, more in line with the original wikipedia definition) is different from a "dairy farm" (where animals are housed and milk is collected). These should both be subsections of the greater title, "Dairy". I also propose we update the original definition of "Dairy" on the wikipedia disambiguation page to be more accurate. --AslanEntropy (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)--AslanEntropy (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you give me a citation that shows that the two are "synonymous?" They are not synonymous in the United States. I hope we don't have a dialect problem here. I agree that "dairy plant" is used for used for processing. It has a unique, unambiguous name.
 * The Wiktionary definition above was for "dairy" only. Student7 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please forgive my poor formatting; I am new at wikipedia editing: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dairy - the third definition of "dairy" is a "dairy farm." I think User:Student7:Student7 has raised a valid suggestion. We should continue this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AslanEntropy (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 January 2014


 * As a dairy technician, I would say that a dairy/dairy farm is the place where milk is harvested for further processing, wether that be on-site or off-site, most larger producers of milk, have a tanker pick up the milk after it has been chilled to 4°C, from a bulk milk silo. Trumpy (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:student7 that this article seems to be wrongly named.
 * Most of this article is about several different aspects of the Dairy Industry overall, not just about the buildings, farms, factories etc known as a dairy. Just using the word "Dairy" as the title does not reflect what most of the article is about. 95.145.86.73 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

M. paratuberculosis
The link between the bacterium and humans is certainly relevant to this article (notice that every disease listed is notable because they affect humans), and the information has a reliable source. If the information is to be removed, please explain why here on the talk page. Paisarepa (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the statement regarding Johne's disease and Crohn's disease is not relevent to a Wikipedia page on dairy. Firstly, this is what the Johne's disease Wikipedia page says: There are clinical similarities between Johne's disease in ruminants and inflammatory bowel disease in humans,[4] and because of this, some researchers contend that the organism is a cause of Crohn's disease.[5] [6] However, epidemiologic studies have provided variable results; in certain studies, the organism (or an immune response directed against it) has been much more frequently found in patients with Crohn's disease than asymptomatic people. The Wikipedia page on Johne's disease contradicts the kind of wording that you have been using.


 * Further, this is a Wikipedia page on dairy. It's fine to mention bacteria infections that could be associated with dairy, but because all of these bacteria infections have more detailed Wikipedia pages, we should be brief and only mention how they are associated to the main topic of the page (mainly dairy). We should not include a statement that is speculative (association with Crohn's disease)on a section that is intended to be a quick summary. DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi DivaNtrainin. Thanks for coming to discuss our conflicting edits. Is your primary concern with the inclusion of a statement about the link between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease, or with the language used in the statement? Just to be clear, I have no issue with changing the language as long as it still reflects current scientific consensus, though I believe that the language I have been using is in agreement with both current scientific consensus as well as the article on Johne's disease (and if it isn't, please point out specifically what language is contradictory and how it is, so I can change it). For the record, just before I first edited the article it read "The bacteria are present in retail milk, and are believed by some researchers[who?] to be the primary cause of Crohn's disease in humans."(no citations) and I changed it to read "The bacteria are able to survive pasteurization and were found in 2.8% of retail whole milk pints in the USA.[13] Some studies have suggested a link between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease in humans, though causation has not been confirmed.[14]"


 * I agree that we should be brief in discussing these associated diseases. However, I do not feel that three or four lines is overly detailed (especially since the name of the bacterium alone takes up a full half line), nor do I feel that the section contained any information that was not relevant to the article. A short acknowledgement of the possible link between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease is appropriate -- not an overly long statement, or overly detailed, but a sentence or two that accurately depicts the diseases' possible link. Why? First, because every disease listed is a disease that dairy animals can carry that can also affect humans. That is what a list of associated diseases is -- a list of animal or human-borne diseases that are associated with dairy farming or dairy products. The statements concerning the other listed diseases each specify how they affect humans (usually by infection of the disease listed), so why not M. paratuberculosis? For example, "Brucellosis is a bacterial disease transmitted to humans...," "Leptospirosis is an infection that could be transmitted to people...," "Cowpox...led to the first vaccination against the now eradicated smallpox," etc. Where "Brucellosis is a bacterial disease transmitted to humans" is appropriate, so too is "some studies have suggested a link between M. paratuberculosis and [the human] Crohn's disease." In fact, without the link between the two, M. paratuberculosis would be less relevant to the page than it is with the link.


 * Second, because the statement in the article was not speculative, as you say it was. Rather, it portrayed current scientific consensus concerning the relationship between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease just as it is -- many studies have shown a link between the two, though causation has not yet been confirmed. For example, see http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1344964&fileId=S0950268807008448, which states "this bacterium has received an increasingly wide interest because of a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence which suggests that human infection with this microorganism may be causing some, and possibly all, cases of Crohn's disease," and see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2718892/ which states "most people with Crohn's disease are found to be infected [with M. paratuberculosis].... An overwhelming balance of probability and Public health risk favours the conclusion that Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis is also pathogenic for people." Additionally, a drug developed to combat Crohn's disease by using drugs effective against the bacterium went through a phase II drug trial several years ago and the results showed that "65 per cent of patients showed complete remission and over 95 per cent showed marked improvement." (see http://lifescientist.com.au/content/health-medical/news/giaconda-touts-results-for-h-pylori-crohn-s-disease-1137126586). Are there any studies that suggest that M. paratuberculosis is harmless to humans? Is there any evidence against the idea that some or all cases of Crohn's disease are caused in part by M. paratuberculosis? This isn't an idea that can be dismissed off hand as not having any evidence supporting it -- while causation is unconfirmed, the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports it.


 * Thanks again for joining in this discussion. Paisarepa (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You say "Is your primary concern with the inclusion of a statement about the link between M. paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease, or with the language used in the statement?" Answer: My primary concern is that your statements are not consistent with either Crohn's disease or Johne's disease. In both those wikipedia pages, the link between the bacteria and Crohn's disease are speculative, yet in a Wikipedia page that is dedicated to neither Crohn's disease nor the bacteria, you want to make definitive statements regarding this. I know in your second point you say that this link is not speculative, yet, your wording is not consistent with Wikipedia pages that are dedicated to Crohn's disease or johne's disease.


 * The larger issue is this is a Wikipedia page on dairy. As editors we have to choose what we want to include in a Wikipedia page and what we don't. In this case, because there are other Wikipedia pages that are well written and well sourced, when we are referring to the topic, we need only make a one or two sentence that summarizes the link between the main topic (i.e. dairy) and the main point (i.e. Johne's disease) and leave a lot of the other The fact that you have peer reviewed sources doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be included in a Wikipedia page. You also need to ask, is the peer reviewed source material relevent to the Wikipedia page. In this case, the answer is no.DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: your concern that the statement I wrote was definitive, and not consistent with Crohn's disease and/or Johne's disease: The last time I edited this part of the page (the edit that you reverted), I noted your concern that the language in this article was contradictory to the language in the disease article, so I ensured that both articles said almost exactly the same thing (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn%27s_disease#Microbes). In writing the statement in the dairy article, I simply took the relevant section in the Crohn's disease article, and removed what I thought was unnecessary detail for the dairy page. If you feel that my removing of detail changes the meaning of the statement, then by all means correct it to be true to the sources cited. Again, I apologize if my statements appear to be definitive. I certainly do not mean them to be so. However, if that is your concern, please simply edit the statement so that it is not definitive rather than remove it entirely.


 * Re: your concern that the section on M. paratuberculosis is too long/too detailed/not revelevant: I could suggest several shorter statements. For example, it could simply say "Crohn's disease may be caused in part by M. paratuberculosis, a bacterium that can survive pasteurization and has been found in retail milk." That would make the section on M. paratuberculosis the shortest one out of all the diseases mentioned, and the information contained is certainly relevant, fitting with the list, and in agreement with the page on Crohn's disease. I personally feel that more information is beneficial, but I am certainly willing to compromise to that shorter length. Again, if your concern is length/relevance, please just remove unnecessary details, rather than completely cutting out the human connection or removing the section entirely. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The reference to Crohn's disease should be removed because Crohn's Disease is not relevant to the topic of this Wikipedia page (I.e. Dairy). There is no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Crohn's disease from drinking dairy, therefore there is no reason to mention it in this page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are five sources providing the evidence that Crohn's is associated with dairy, and one source providing the evidence that M. paratuberculosis is found in retail milk. It is literally the best sourced part of the entire article. Please do not revert the edit as not having evidence when that is clearly false. Paisarepa (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: IMO the material should (mostly) stay. We have an existing section on diseases in this article, and some solid references that meet WP:MEDPRI linking dairy products to Crohns disease. Both Uzoigwe et al and Hermon-Taylor are good solid reviews of the current literature and evidence. I can't get past the paywall of Saleh & Colins, but the abstract looks good. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV not to include this material. However I think it's a little too detailed compared to the rest of the section and we want to avoid violating WP:UNDUE. I suggest a statement to the effect of "Crohn's disease has been linked to infection with the bacterium M. paratuberculosiswhich has been found in retail milk in the US. M. paratuberculosis causes a similar disorder, Johne's Disease, in livestock. With appropriate links of course. Anything else can be included to the linked Crohns disease article. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark Marathon. Thanks for offering a third opinion. As suggested, I cut out much of the detail per WP:UNDUE, though I did leave in just a bit more (four words) than your suggested statement. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in "Operation of the dairy farm"
The section "Operation of the dairy farm" is unsourced, inconsistent, and describes what seems like a suspiciously idyllic life for these dairy cows. I've quoted the largest inconsistency:

"Most dairy farmers milk their cows with absolute regularity at a minimum of twice a day, with some high-producing herds milking up to four times a day to lessen the weight of large volumes of milk in the udder of the cow.[citation needed] ... If a cow is left unmilked just once she is likely to reduce milk-production almost immediately and the rest of the season may see her dried off (giving no milk) and still consuming feed for no production."

I'd like to first disclaim that I know absolutely nothing about cow biology. But how can a cow's udder be so full that it hurts her if she isn't milked, and yet, she can stop giving milk after a single day? That sounds off. Does anybody have a source for this claim?
 * Thanks for tagging with cites, which are needed. The editor meant (or should have meant) the more frequently a cow is milked, the more milk she produces.
 * Failing to milk a cow has dire effects which I don't know exactly either. At first milk will spurt out of her udder which hurts. Then she will, over time (I don't know how long), will drop production. So a cow unmilked for a week or two, if she survives! will nearly cease production. I'm sure the editor is correct when he says even skipping one milking will affect production. I doubt that this production can be revived during this cycle of bearing a calf.
 * As for the "idyllic" part, they used to advertise "milk from contented cows." Actually, that environment is ideal for dairy production. So I guess the idea is to "spoil" them. :) Student7 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dairy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923005331/http://www.roboticdairy.com:80/indexframe01.htm to http://www.roboticdairy.com/indexframe01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dairy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012183148/http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir116.pdf to http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir116.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roboticdairy.com/indexframe01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904003449/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out21_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out21_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329000803/http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=819 to http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=819

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Dairy industry is suffering from a grand misunderstanding. Humans are not meant to take milk from cows and their offspring. Humans can obtain milk, cream and cheese from non dairy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.106.123 (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Title should be Dairy Industry
Most of this article is about several different aspects of the Dairy Industry overall, not just about the buildings, farms, factories etc known as a dairy. Just using the word "Dairy" as the title does not reflect what most of the article is about. 95.145.86.73 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Terminology
This article seems to mix together dairy as in milk products and dairy as in a factory that processes them. It should be structured better. --91.114.189.165 (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)