Seeing Europeans leave jugs of milk on the counter overnight would certainly cause an American to raise an eyebrow. (And for what it’s worth, vice versa.)

Of the top 10 countries with the lowest rates of lactose intolerance, eight of them are European.

Unsurprisingly, the United States doesn’t crest that list.

But our investigation shouldn’t stop there. It isn’t just that Americans are less likely to possess the gene that processes lactose. It’s that the cows are different. The dairy industries are different. The processes of problem solving are different.

In fact, Americans often find that while they were unable to tolerate dairy in their home country, European milk doesn’t bother them.

We’re going to dig into some of the main reasons that’s the case. 

BST Growth Hormone

BST, a growth hormone, naturally occurs in milk. But not all cows are injected with the hormone. Injecting cows with BST allows them to produce up to 20% more milk. 

Europe banned the practice of BST injections in 1990 – however, the United States has not. (It’s worth noting that BST is produced by Monsanto, the same company that makes Roundup.)

While the hormone does increase milk production, it has also been found to correlate with higher instances of colorectal cancer and prostate cancer in women and men, respectively. This is because the hormone raises the presence of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1).

And while both European and American dairy milk is pasteurized, only American milk retains the high levels of this hormone after pasteurization (because Europe doesn’t use additional BST to begin with.)

Some studies have even shown that pasteurization can increase IGF-1 levels. Plus…

Rampant Illness Means Antibiotics

The hormones can increase instances of the cow’s illnesses. But that illness increase is also compounded by the conditions North American cows live in.

Most of our milk comes from cows in enormous production systems – sometimes with more than 15,000 cows in one facility.

Not only do the crowded conditions foster disease, but the hormones we just talked about raise the likelihood of cows getting mastitis (infected udders). When that happens, pus and blood make it into our milk supply. 

That means we have to treat these sick cows with antibiotics… and eventually, that leads to antibiotic resistance in humans. In the U.S., there are about 2 million cases per year of antibiotic-resistant infections.

In the Netherlands, when they made the connection between antibiotic use in veterinary healthcare and AMR (antimicrobial resistant) infections in humans, they lowered the use of antibiotics and…

There was a huge reduction in AMR infections in people. 

UHT vs. HTST

Now, we said everyone pasteurized milk, for the most part.  

In Europe, however, they use UHT (ultra-high temperature) pasteurization and in the states and Canada, we use HTST (high temperature, short time.)

Here’s what that means: HTST kills off most of the bacteria in the milk, which is necessary here because of all the hormones and illnesses. However, that’s why our milk expires so quickly, and why we’re required to keep it cold.

UHT pasteurization uses a much higher temperature and for an even shorter time – about three seconds. The milk tastes differently than American milk, because most of the sugar burns off in the process. It also becomes more stable, so it can be left on the shelf rather than refrigerated.

The bacteria stays gone for around six months, usually.

Amino Acid Differences

And finally, there are some key differences in amino acids. 

All cow’s milk contains beta casein, a protein. Beta casein is a chain of 229 amino acids. 

The difference between American cows and European cows has to do with amino acid 67 – in European cows, it’s a proline. Because of a genetic mutation in American cows, amino acid 67 is a histidine. 

Now, there’s a protein fragment called beta-casomorphin 7 (BCM-7). 

This protein fragment can get released into the bloodstream or not; if it does, it can stimulate opiate receptors that are associated with autoimmunity, and it has also been linked to dairy intolerance. 

The proline amino acid holds the BCM-7 tightly and doesn’t let it release into the bloodstream. The histidine amino acid does let it release into the bloodstream.

So milk from American cows can allow an amino acid into the bloodstream that irritates those with already unstable guts. 

European and American food regulation systems are incredibly different. 
But perhaps they are the most different in their handling of milk. There’s a reason, after all, that the instances of lactose intolerance (and gluten intolerance – but that’s for a later issue) are so much higher in the States.

The post Why Don’t Europeans Have the Same Reaction to Dairy and Wheat? appeared first on The Urban Monk.

And so there haven’t been rules about food intake per household, like the last time there were rations. While mainstream headlines continue to remind us that there are no food shortages yet…

It’s hard to envision a world where a pandemic doesn’t at least lead to food insecurity. And we can easily see how that would happen. Meat-packing plants in Iowa alone saw nearly 1,500 cases of coronavirus, due to the concentrated and unsafe conditions for many of those workers.

Here’s the thing to remember – food shortage doesn’t necessarily mean that enough food doesn’t exist. In this case, it means that there has been a break in the supply chain and has resulted in difficult food distribution.

The United States is a BIG place. You may not have been personally affected by food shortage or price gouging, but it’s happening all over the country.

Partially, the reason this disruption has even affected Americans is that we have a meatpacking monopoly in this country. When enormous butchering and packaging plants like Smithfield and Tyson shut down, smaller slaughterhouses simply don’t have the ability – size, scope, manpower, storage – to pick up the slack and close the shortage gap.

This leaves pig, cow, and chicken farmers with livestock they can’t offload, and meat that doesn’t make it to our tables.

But it’s not just meat we’re talking about…

Produce Shortage Produces Panic

The early days of the pandemic saw shoppers panic-buying produce and stocking up on perishables. 

Savvy consumers then began growing vegetable gardens to insulate themselves against the twin possibilities of limited crop supply and grocery store-raids by nervous citizens. 

But in some parts of the world, especially places with strict lockdown measures (not the suggested safety guidelines we have in the States), vegetables either expired faster in hotter climates than they could get to stores, or they couldn’t get to stores at all.

Seed stores and nurseries have reported incredible sales, and more business than some have had in decades.

So we’re all forced to draw some pretty quick conclusions:

1. Meatpacking monopolies don’t hold up well against pandemics. Their employees aren’t offered protections, and therefore are susceptible to striking. The plants themselves are at risk of closing due to documented cases. 

2. Local farmers often get hit the hardest – being used to meeting a level of demand (schools, slaughterhouses, individuals, restaurants, etc.), their supply goes to waste and they’re given minimal survival support. This takes into account the relief that was allotted for farmers by the coronavirus aid package passed in April – which rings in rather low in comparison to their losses, and comes with myriad strings attached. 

3. Consumers don’t actually know a lot about what goes into the production of their food – from raising livestock, to developing contracts with Big Ag meatpackers, to distributing the results nationally.

What can we do? 

They have supply, we have demand… 

Source Right from the Farm 

Farm-to-table eating habits have gained plenty of traction in the last few decades. Consumers loved the idea of restaurants buying directly from farmers rather than from restaurant supply depots.

But now, we have a chance to circumvent the middle man entirely…

Farmers are hurting. They’re afraid that their place in America’s future won’t be there after the pandemic. And they might be right – wouldn’t it be cleaner if slaughterhouses and government agencies controlled the means of production and didn’t have to negotiate with farmers?

And our food supply isn’t as simple and immutable as we thought it was.

All around the country, grassroots movements are growing to facilitate directly purchasing goods from farmers. 

Try these tips to connect with your local farmers and buy from them:

1. If it’s safe and possible, get your face masks and your gloves and trek on down to your local farmer’s market. Buy right from the producers and grocers, and make connections while you’re there! Would it be possible for you to go right to their farm? What do they have a surplus of? Could you and a few neighbors go in on splitting a pig, buying several chickens, etc.?

2. Search organic farms in your area – it’s likely that if they have more supplies than they know what to do with, they’ll advertise it on their websites!

3. Try shopping at green grocers or butchers instead of at supermarkets. It’s likelier that those kinds of stores are buying right from farmers, and will need to restock supplies the more you buy from them.

4. If you’re making an effort to support local farmers, tell your friends! Encourage them to shop from farmers as well! 

Earning money isn’t evil – turning a profit from working your land isn’t a death knell for socialist principles. In fact, it’s one of the more socially conscious ways to participate in capitalism. 

Now more than ever, it deeply matters where our dollars go. 

You’re going to eat anyway – does Big Ag need that buck? Should Big Ag get that buck?

You get to decide.

The post Why you Should Support your Local Farmers Right Now appeared first on The Urban Monk.

You see, one thing that ecologists, biodiversity experts, climate scientists, and conservationists can agree on is that nature in its purest, least molested form has incredible carbon sequestration capabilities. After all, carbon doesn’t only come from fossil fuels, Nature has had its own way of regulating climate since the dawn of time.

That method depends heavily on intricately connected ecosystems.

And bit by bit, man has teased those ecosystems apart for one reason or another. 

We did away with apex predators like wolves and lynxes because they were threats to our livestock, which we needed in order to sell animal products and support our families.

We deforested trees to clear paths for homesteads, and used the lumber to build our shelters.

We’ve disrupted the migratory patterns of birds with our pesticides, destroyed biodiversity in favor of cash crop monoculture, robbed the world of valuable carbon sinks, and threatened our pollinators with extinction.

And when we think of all that we’ve changed about nature’s complete design, “planting trees” feels like it doesn’t quite cover all manner of sins.

Although “rewilding” contains a multitude of meanings depending on the listener (more on that further down), simply planting trees isn’t going far enough towards restoring ecosystems, sequestering carbon, or preventing extinction.

Here’s why.

Planting Trees is Only the First Step

When the World Economic Forum announced in January of this year that they were launching a global initiative to plant one trillion trees within the coming decade, activists and civilians alike rejoiced.

That’s a big number – the planet will surely benefit enormously from one trillion more trees, won’t it?

Possibly… but there are caveats.

For starters, tree planting has the strongest effect when it’s done in urban areas, and that’s because urban centers are carbon hotspots without the possibility of being “rewilded”. Vacant lots behind movie theaters don’t have the potential to be returned to their original states as thriving wetlands or grasslands or whatever they were before we paved them…

But a perimeter of trees where there was previously only concrete can have a more powerful effect than zero trees. And we need to plant them there, otherwise they won’t grow because there aren’t natural seed sources nearby to carry seeds on the wind or through animal excrement.

However, planting trees doesn’t often result in full forest regrowth. We’re only planting a handful of species, and usually without consideration of what’s native to the area. 

That means that the trees grown where humans have planted them might not restore the original ecosystem at best, and at worst may actually harm the species still living there.

Plus, tree diversity encourages animal and insect species diversity, which welcomes more life.

There are several different ways to bring about the return of trees where we’ve previously decimated them. 

Afforestation, for example, is a method of planting trees where a forest had not existed in the past. It’s laying the foundations for nature to create a new ecosystem.

Reforestation is planting trees where a forest did exist, up until relatively recently.

Natural forest regrowth, however, is simply removing obstacles to trees, such as invasive species, grazing animals, or pesticides, which involves less up-front cost than a massive tree-planting campaign.

Rewilding, of course, is its own beast.

The Nature of Rewilding

Rewilding became an expression in the 1990s, coined by American environmentalist Dave Froman. It’s garnered criticism for a few reasons.

For one, some of its critics take issue with its emphasis on low-human involvement, interpreting the movement as one that excludes the inevitability of human contact.

Proponents of rewilding insist that their aims are to rewild ecosystems in such a way that humans can interact with it in harmony. As discussed, those living in the countryside or who have livestock feel trepidation about the reintroduction of predator species. But when wolves returned to Yellowstone in the ‘90s, for instance, several things became possible:

• Elk population decreased, which meant plant diversity flourished.
• When plant diversity flourished, beavers and other natural environment reshapers returned and built dams and other structures.
• Ponds and other new features increased diversity for the species that thrive in those conditions. 

Rewilding has been used to mean “productive land abandonment”, as in literally just letting nature take over and recreate its own systems, “releasing captive-bred animals into the wild”, as with predators and carnivores that can control things like deer population so that plant species don’t go extinct from their grazing, and many more.

David Attenborough himself is a huge supporter of rewilding.

The best way to go about it, according to prominent researchers, is a threefold approach, all hinging on balance. 

1. Build redundancy into the ecosystem by making sure that there are enough different species throughout each level of the food chain. Predators, pollinators, decomposers, herbivores, etc. This ensures that all roles will be fulfilled.

2. There need to be enough interlocking species that can connect ecosystems, such that every plant, animal, and insect is relevant to more than one cascade of effects.

3. We must remove ourselves as stewards regarding natural occurrences like floods and fires, as those occurrences strengthen natural resiliency and preserve the balance of species against each other.

Rewilded grasslands, forests, marshes, wetlands, and other biomes have such a high potential to sequester carbon, save species, and restore biodiversity that it belongs at the top of an any ecological strategy to fight climate change. 

As Attenborough says, “we must rewild the world.”

The post Controversy Trails in the Wake of “Rewilding”: Explore the Nuance appeared first on The Urban Monk.

When we figured out we didn’t have to hope we find vegetation, we could just learn the secrets of the soil and grow it ourselves wherever we wanted to, we built societies, civilizations, governments, townships, municipalities…

But there are some problems with that model.

One, we’ve talked about pretty extensively – we’re not ruminants. We don’t have the teeth or the digestive systems to process grasses (wheat, barley, oats, rye, corn, sugar cane) like ruminants can. 

That doesn’t mean you have to stop eating those things – it’s just that they don’t contribute to our systems running optimally. But a lot of what we’re growing are grasses, and so that’s what we’re eating. 

More importantly, however, agriculture led to the hubris of monoculture and cash crops, which is how soil depletion even entered into our vocabulary. 

And it’s causing major problems.

Soil Depletion 

This is what happens when the nutrients and components in soil that make it fertile and allow for healthy, consistent crops is used and not replaced. When that happens, crop yields are lower and less robust. Excessive cultivation, monoculture, and less-than-attentive soil management are at the root cause of soil depletion.

This isn’t a new concept – even during the early days of plantation farming in the United States, farms frequently went bankrupt or changed locations because of the constant tobacco farming and growing trade demands. 

Practices that affect soil fertility can be:

• Allowing herd animals to graze freely, which can lead to soil compaction (reduction of pore space in soil) and close-cropping 
• Not using manure to feed nutrients back to the soil
• Industrial logging on a large scale
• Slash-and-burn agriculture
• Monocropping
• And more.

The problem we’re facing is two-fold: our soil isn’t healthy and so isn’t producing healthy crops, and the soil is eroding, which is not great for climate change. 

Why? 

Because when soil erodes, it takes the carbon that was trapped inside of it along with it, and that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere.

When you combine the carbon-releasing effects of soil erosion with the carbon-releasing effects of our current agricultural and land use practices, the EPA estimates that around 24% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from the agricultural sector.

That’s where regenerative agriculture can help.

Repairing the Carbon Sink Beneath Our Feet

According the Rodale Institute’s latest white paper, Regenerative Agriculture and the Soil Carbon Solution, we can use regenerative agriculture as a means to “sequester carbon, improve soil health, and feed the world.”

That’s a tall order.

Let’s start with what exactly regenerative agriculture is…

You can think of it as the opposite of our current system. Rather than resulting in soil depletion, regenerative agriculture assigns equal focus to restoring nutrients to the soil as it does to drawing them out of the soil to bring into crops. 

And because soil isn’t being damaged during high-yield crop harvests and monoculture, it stops eroding and continues to store carbon.

Farming practices that are considered regenerative include:

• Composting
• Cover cropping and green manure use
• Seasonal crop rotations
• Integrated livestock practices (like having ruminants strategically graze pastures in order to build up soil)
• Less tilling of the soil (which releases carbon)
• Complete absence of chemical fertilizers (which kills microbes, bacteria, and fungi in the soil that help to trap carbon)

By turning to these practices, we accomplish a few goals. 

We lock more and more carbon into the soil. You see, when plants pull sugar from the carbon in the atmosphere during photosynthesis, they do it to feed the microbes in the soil surrounding their roots. The microbes eat the carbon, and convert it to more easily storable materials. 

We also increase the nutritional value of the food we’re eating (which has been declining, as some studies have found), and by diversifying the crops planted in our massive fields, we reintroduce some of the original ecosystem to the land. 

And, as is an increasing concern in the age of extreme weather events and climate change,  regenerative agriculture strengthens the soil and prevents it from eroding, which preserves habitats, ecosystems, carbon sequestration, and helps to protect against powerful storms. 

If you’re attempting to vote with your dollar here, look for these labels:

• REGENERATIVE ORGANIC CERTIFIED
• REAL ORGANIC PROJECT
• USDA CERTIFIED ORGANIC
• LAND TO MARKET
• SOIL CARBON INITIATIVE

These labels account for various initiatives – the second two focus less on the “organic” outcome of the harvest, and more on the practices used in animal, soil, and water infiltration care. The first three focus on both regenerative practices and organic outcome, with the first certification being considered the gold standard of regenerative farming.

In so many words, regenerative farming is the practice of spiritually concerning yourself with the land. It’s common sense – do not take without giving, do not be careless, do not poison. 

And it’s probably our best hope for transforming our industrial agriculture system. 

The post Fixing our Food and the Climate: Regenerative Farming 101 appeared first on The Urban Monk.

And since they don’t have jobs, it’s up to you to decide when their ailments are serious enough to require vet visits…

Or when there may be a topical fix at home. 

The average price of a vet visit for a dog can range between $50 and $400. 

Staying informed as a pet owner is the best thing you can do to save yourself some money.

And guess what?

The most common reason for vet visits in America is… skin allergies.

Itchiness can be caused by environmental factors, allergies, pests, diet, and more.

It’s important that dog owners know what all of the options are so that they can effectively ease the suffering of the family members who can’t advocate for themselves.

In this post, we’re going to talk about some of the ways your dog’s skin can become irritated, and how to identify them.

Symptoms

The most common symptom which should alert dog owners to a problem is excessive itching.

Itching can be localized or generalized, but if you notice that your pup is giving themselves red patches and making their skin raw and sore from itching, there’s likely a problem. 

There may also be issues if you notice coughing or trouble breathing, resulting in wheezing noises. 

If their noses are too runny or there’s an uncommon amount of discharge coming from their eyes, they may be experiencing an allergy. 

Even feet-eating and paw-licking are signs of allergic reactions. 

But the first sign of obvious (and allergic) discomfort is usually persistent itching.

Most Common Allergens for Dogs and Their Tells

The top three most common allergens for dogs are: 

• Flea dermatitis
• Food 
• Environment

Most pet owners know about the dangers of fleabites. It’s actually not the fleas themselves that dogs are allergic to — it’s flea saliva. 

Dogs itching at the tail-base, right near their doggy-tushies, is an indication that the itchiness is flea-related, as is red, inflamed, and scabbed skin. 

(Obviously, if you notice fleas themselves, you should have a clear-cut idea of what’s going on here. Fleas look like ¼ inch reddish brown bugs. They can jump up to six feet. They cannot fly, however.)

Now, when a dog has food allergies, you’ll likely see them chewing their paws, scratching behind their ears, and licking their paw beds. 

Of course, food allergies can also manifest in standard tummy issues — if they’re not eating their food, it’s likely that they’re experiencing an aversion to it for one reason or another. Inconsistent bowel movements and frequent vomit are also signs of food allergies.

Finally, when your dog is allergic to pollen, dust, mold, or other seasonal environmental contagions, you’ll be able to tell because:

1. They are only affected during certain seasons and
2. They’ll be scratching and biting at their paws and ears (like with food), but also at their wrists, ankles, muzzles, armpits, groin, and in between the toes.

How to Ease Your Dog’s Itches

If you can’t get to a vet right away when you notice an issue, there are ways you can mitigate their upset at home. Especially because breaking the skin can leave your dog vulnerable to secondary infections. 

For example, if you notice your dog itching and biting at the base of their tail, part their fur with your fingers and try to spot flat-bodied insects hopping away from your fingers. You could also brush their fur while they stand on a white towel or floor so that you can see fleas jumping off!

If fleas are the obvious culprit, give your dog a flea bath. You can find medicine at most pet stores and pharmacies.

If the symptoms are pointing to a food allergy, consider the type of protein you’re feeding your dog. Beef, gluten, chicken, chicken eggs, dairy products, soy, and lamb are all common food allergens. 

If your dog’s regular food contains any of those ingredients, it may be worth switching to another brand with different ingredients to see if you notice an easement in symptoms. 

If their allergies seem to be more respiratory in nature, or are causing itchiness in the groin, between the toes, wrists, or ankles, and you think the cause might be environmental, getting your dog tested at the vet is definitely advised so that you can tackle the right problem.

If you need immediate relief for your dog, it’s important to note they can take over-the-counter Benadryl! (Approval from your vet is recommended — just give them a call to confirm.)

The post When Your Pup’s Got an Itch They Can’t Scratch… appeared first on The Urban Monk.